Hi,

I had no idea so much discussion would result from this simple question. But I guess that's a good thing.

The only issue I have, given all the subtleties and complexities of the construct and its interpretation / operation within the rest of the language's features and characteristics, is that its superficial similarity to a Java construct is _very_ misleading.

If I were around when this control-flow construct were being devised, I would have strongly argued that it not be called "switch," that the "none-of-the-above" keyword be something other than "default" (maybe "otherwise," as, I think, Common LISP uses for its multiple-choice construct). "Case" is probably OK.

But I think having so much syntactic indistinguishability from what is a barely related Java construct is asking for trouble.

At the very least, putting "default:" anywhere but the end should be a compile-time error. Right?

Randall Schulz