Index: doc/user/user.tex
===================================================================
--- doc/user/user.tex	(revision 43299af3fa4191b9e21f457979a6dcca6323b230)
+++ doc/user/user.tex	(revision d96f7c4f1e2b7dfb521e83969e9704b7e12505da)
@@ -11,6 +11,6 @@
 %% 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
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 
@@ -893,5 +893,5 @@
 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 ) {
@@ -901,5 +901,5 @@
   case 5:
 	...
-	®fallthru®; §\C{// explicit fall through}§
+	®fallthrough®; §\C{// explicit fall through}§
   case 7:
 	...
@@ -911,5 +911,5 @@
 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
@@ -950,5 +950,5 @@
   case 3:
 	if ( ... ) {
-		... ®fallthru;® // goto case 4
+		... ®fallthrough;® // goto case 4
 	} else {
 		...
@@ -985,5 +985,5 @@
 		for ( ... ) {
 			// multi-level transfer
-			... ®fallthru common;®
+			... ®fallthrough common;®
 		}
 		...
@@ -8053,5 +8053,5 @@
 \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},
@@ -8079,5 +8079,5 @@
 \Indexc{exception}		\\
 \Indexc{fallthrough}	\\
-\Indexc{fallthru}		\\
+\Indexc{fallthrough}	\\
 \end{tabular}
 &