[leni536]

Surely the following would work just as well?

  #define brkcase break;case

kinda defeats the purpose of the macro even.

[MaxBarraclough]

That strikes me as better. The original macro presumably misbehaves if there's more than one statement in a sequence, as the if will only affect the first statement.

[wrsh07]

I think the behavior is slightly different since this one breaks the above case, and the other one only omits its case from fallthrough

Incidentally, what happens if you use your brkcase as the first case?

I don't find either particularly exciting - a macro that would append break to the current case feels better

[leni536]

Both version of the macro makes this fall through from 0:

  switch (a) {
    brkcase 0: foo();
    case 1: bar();
  }

so in a sense the `if (0) case` trick also affects the previous case, not the current one. But that one also falls apart when there are multiple statements under the brkcase.