[vortico]

Looks the same to me. https://godbolt.org/z/CfhD5k Switches were invented mostly because they were an easy hint to the compiler to reduce to a tree search, but because compilers are smart today, they're obsolete unless you just prefer their syntax.

Even if the cases are consecutive, most compiler optimizers are smart enough to determine that the ASTs are equivalent.

[enriquto]

> they're obsolete unless you just prefer their syntax.

This is a good point.

Sometimes I prefer the (ugly) syntax of switches than that of conditionals. The reason is that a chain of conditionals is non-symmetrical (there's no condition for the first "case"), while a switch is formally invariant to permutation of the cases. I have even seen shit like this:

    if (false) ;
    else if (c == 1) { first case ; }
    else if (c == 2) { second case; }
    ...

just to preserve the symmetry along the cases.

[vortico]

Are you talking about the `else` being non-symmetric? You don't need it at all. I do this.

  if (c == 1) { first case ; }
  if (c == 2) { second case; }

[enriquto]

...and hereby I give back my programming license and go back to civil life.

[pintxo]

This might result in another fallthrough scenario though, wouldn't it?

[vortico]

No, because `c` can't be 1 and 2 at the same time.

[pintxo]

In this specific example. But you cannot rule it out in general.