Changeset d96f7c4 for doc/user/user.tex

Timestamp:

Jan 17, 2025, 3:46:34 PM (2 months ago)

Author:

Peter A. Buhr <pabuhr@…>

Branches:

master

Children:

df56e25

Parents:

3b340d68

Message:

expunge fallthru keyword and replace its usages with fallthrough

File:

• doc/user/user.tex (modified) (8 diffs)

doc/user/user.tex ¶

@@ -11 +11 @@
 %% Created On       : Wed Apr  6 14:53:29 2016
 %% Last Modified By : Peter A. Buhr
-%% Last Modified On : Sat Dec  7 16:53:37 2024
-%% Update Count     : 6970
+%% Last Modified On : Fri Jan 17 14:20:39 2025
+%% Update Count     : 6971
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 
@@ -893 +893 @@
 still works.
 Nevertheless, reversing the default action would have a non-trivial effect on case actions that compound, such as the above example of processing shell arguments.
-Therefore, to preserve backwards compatibility, it is necessary to introduce a new kind of ©switch© statement, called \Indexc{choose}, with no implicit fall-through semantics and an explicit fall-through if the last statement of a case-clause ends with the new keyword \Indexc{fallthrough}/\-\Indexc{fallthru}, \eg:
+Therefore, to preserve backwards compatibility, it is necessary to introduce a new kind of ©switch© statement, called \Indexc{choose}, with no implicit fall-through semantics and an explicit fall-through if the last statement of a case-clause ends with the new keyword \Indexc{fallthrough}, \eg:
 \begin{cfa}
 ®choose® ( i ) {
@@ -901 +901 @@
   case 5:
         ...
-        ®fallthru®; §\C{// explicit fall through}§
+        ®fallthrough®; §\C{// explicit fall through}§
   case 7:
         ...
@@ -911 +911 @@
 Like the ©switch© statement, the ©choose© statement retains the fall-through semantics for a list of ©case© clauses.
 An implicit ©break© is applied only at the end of the \emph{statements} following a ©case© clause.
-An explicit ©fallthru© is retained because it is a C-idiom most C programmers expect, and its absence might discourage programmers from using the ©choose© statement.
+An explicit ©fallthrough© is retained because it is a C-idiom most C programmers expect, and its absence might discourage programmers from using the ©choose© statement.
 As well, allowing an explicit ©break© from the ©choose© is a carry over from the ©switch© statement, and expected by C programmers.
 \item
@@ -950 +950 @@
   case 3:
         if ( ... ) {
-                ... ®fallthru;® // goto case 4
+                ... ®fallthrough;® // goto case 4
         } else {
                 ...
@@ -985 +985 @@
                 for ( ... ) {
                         // multi-level transfer
-                        ... ®fallthru common;®
+                        ... ®fallthrough common;®
                 }
                 ...
@@ -8053 +8053 @@
 \begin{cquote}
 \Indexc{basetypeof}, \Indexc{choose}, \Indexc{coroutine}, \Indexc{disable},
-\Indexc{enable}, \Indexc{exception}, \Indexc{fallthrough}, \Indexc{fallthru},
+\Indexc{enable}, \Indexc{exception}, \Indexc{fallthrough}, \Indexc{fallthrough},
 \Indexc{finally}, \Indexc{fixup}, \Indexc{forall},\Indexc{generator},
 \Indexc{int128}, \Indexc{monitor}, \Indexc{mutex}, \Indexc{one_t},
@@ -8079 +8079 @@
 \Indexc{exception}              \\
 \Indexc{fallthrough}    \\
-\Indexc{fallthru}               \\
+\Indexc{fallthrough}    \\
 \end{tabular}
 &