This works when each case is discreet (having its own scope), ie each case terminates the switch with a break. But one of the features of switches is that things "fall through" each case until they hit a break. I've always liked that aspect of switches, even though it's often overlooked and can make it more confusing to read/grasp.
Just curious if setting each case in a scope like your suggested style specifically prevents that fall-through or breaks (renders unexpected behavior) code between switches due to the scope not carrying over.
This works when each case is discreet (having its own scope), ie each case terminates the switch with a break. But one of the features of switches is that things "fall through" each case until they hit a break. I've always liked that aspect of switches, even though it's often overlooked and can make it more confusing to read/grasp.
Just curious if setting each case in a scope like your suggested style specifically prevents that fall-through or breaks (renders unexpected behavior) code between switches due to the scope not carrying over.
Oh man, I love when I do a little further research and find out that the thing I'm talking about has a huge debate associated with it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallthrough_...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duff%27s_device
So it may be the case that your suggested syntax adds extra reinforcement for fall-through to be avoided as an intentional design practice.
You beat me to my own argument 😉
That said, I myself have also used fall-through statements on rare occasions.
That that said (is that a thing?), scoping each case using
{}doesn't prevent you from falling through case statements anyways.