Expected a default case.

[jonathanong]

ex:

switch (typeof thing) {
  case 'function':
    return doSomething()
  case 'string':
    return doSomethingElse()
}

throw new TypeError('wtf did u just give me')

and i'd make those cases one-liners if i know none of the cases are going to be multiple lines

[feross]

So, you want to write switch statements without a default case.

I don't feel strongly about enforcing this rule and would happily remove it if there's support. I think fall-through from a switch is expected and obvious when none of the cases match. It's just like an if statement. I don't think forcing a default case is necessary.

Anyone opposed to relaxing this rule? @mafintosh @maxogden

[dcousens]

The only advantage with the switch in this case is the implicit LHS of the expression, its like a with statement.

IMHO, my list is:

++ Shorter, less repeat of typeof thing, even if cached, no LHS repeat
-- break can be forgotten
-- == is used, not ===, therefore breaking one of our standards for quality
-- like if, it has 3 possible bracketing/breaking styles:

case "a": return 0
case "b":
  return 1
case "c": {
  return 2
}

[jprichardson]

I'd be in favor of relaxing this rule.

[dcousens]

Right, I was just arguing against a switch in general.
I think the lack of a default case should be allowed.

To say otherwise would be equivalent of saying every if statement must have an else.

[mafintosh]

my thoughts: default should not be required. one-line case statements should be allowed (don't know if we already do that).

[feross]

Okay 👍 default is no longer required in switch statements. Released as 2.4.4.

@mafintosh One-line case statements are already allowed. :)