switch (letter) {
	case [a] {
	} :: control
	case [b] {
	} :: control
	case [c] {
	}:: control
} :: control

switch (item) :: control // this and the case block would be fused together, other case blocks would not be fused together but can only be used in this context
case [...] {
...
} case [...] {
...
} :: control // this case block and beyond would not be fused to switch. the reason the first case was fused was so that no other blocks can be used underneath switch
case [...] {
...
} :: control
default {
...
} :: control // If none of the cases are met, then do this

break :: control

A-no-meep wrote:

davidkt wrote:

Firedrake969 wrote:

davidkt wrote:

Mockup:

switch (variable) ::control // pretend it's joined with the block below
case (1)::cstart control 
...
case (2)::celse
...
case (3) + - ::celse
...
default ::celse
...
end

Anyway, support.

Would we want optional breaks or not?

Not. It would be too confusing, and there aren't going to be many circumstances where you'll need to not have the break.

Agreed. Most instances of deliberately not having break can be solved with duplicate.

stop [break v]

set (letter) to (switch)
broadcast (letter)

// if a case is true, runs the code and exits the switch
switch () {
case () {
. . . 
} ::control
case () {
. . .
} ::control
else {
. . .
} ::control cap
} ::control