newVal存在于开关的整个作用域中，但只有在VAL分支被命中时才会初始化。如果你在VAL中创建一个代码块，它应该是OK的。

交换机的整个部分是一个单独的声明上下文。你不能像那样在case语句中声明变量。试试这个吧:

switch (val)  
{  
case VAL:
{
  // This will work
  int newVal = 42;
  break;
}
case ANOTHER_VAL:  
  ...
  break;
}

有趣的是，这很好:

switch (i)  
{  
case 0:  
    int j;  
    j = 7;  
    break;  

case 1:  
    break;
}

．.． 但这不是:

switch (i)  
{  
case 0:  
    int j = 7;  
    break;  

case 1:  
    break;
}

我得到一个修复足够简单，但我不明白为什么第一个例子不打扰编译器。正如之前所提到的(2年前的呵呵)，声明不是导致错误的原因，即使有逻辑。初始化是问题所在。如果变量在不同的行上被初始化和声明，它将被编译。

您不能这样做，因为case标签实际上只是包含块的入口点。

达夫的装置最清楚地说明了这一点。以下是一些来自维基百科的代码:

strcpy(char *to, char *from, size_t count) {
    int n = (count + 7) / 8;
    switch (count % 8) {
    case 0: do { *to = *from++;
    case 7:      *to = *from++;
    case 6:      *to = *from++;
    case 5:      *to = *from++;
    case 4:      *to = *from++;
    case 3:      *to = *from++;
    case 2:      *to = *from++;
    case 1:      *to = *from++;
               } while (--n > 0);
    }
}

请注意大小写标签是如何完全忽略块边界的。是的，这是邪恶的。但这就是为什么您的代码示例不起作用。跳转到case标签与使用goto相同，因此不允许跳过带有构造函数的局部变量。

正如其他几张海报所指出的那样，你需要放入自己的方块:

switch (...) {
    case FOO: {
        MyObject x(...);
        ...
        break; 
    }
    ...
 }

我只是想强调斯利姆的观点。转换构造创建了一个完整的、一等公民的范围。因此，可以在switch语句中在第一个case标签之前声明(并初始化)一个变量，而不需要额外的括号对:

switch (val) {  
  /* This *will* work, even in C89 */
  int newVal = 42;  
case VAL:
  newVal = 1984; 
  break;
case ANOTHER_VAL:  
  newVal = 2001;
  break;
}

这个问题最初同时被标记为c和c++。原始代码在C和c++中都是无效的，但原因完全不同，互不相关。

In C++ this code is invalid because the case ANOTHER_VAL: label jumps into the scope of variable newVal bypassing its initialization. Jumps that bypass initialization of automatic objects are illegal in C++. This side of the issue is correctly addressed by most answers. However, in C language bypassing variable initialization is not an error. Jumping into the scope of a variable over its initialization is legal in C. It simply means that the variable is left uninitialized. The original code does not compile in C for a completely different reason. Label case VAL: in the original code is attached to the declaration of variable newVal. In C language declarations are not statements. They cannot be labeled. And this is what causes the error when this code is interpreted as C code. switch (val) { case VAL: /* <- C error is here */ int newVal = 42; break; case ANOTHER_VAL: /* <- C++ error is here */ ... break; } Adding an extra {} block fixes both C++ and C problems, even though these problems happen to be very different. On the C++ side it restricts the scope of newVal, making sure that case ANOTHER_VAL: no longer jumps into that scope, which eliminates the C++ issue. On the C side that extra {} introduces a compound statement, thus making the case VAL: label to apply to a statement, which eliminates the C issue. In C case the problem can be easily solved without the {}. Just add an empty statement after the case VAL: label and the code will become valid switch (val) { case VAL:; /* Now it works in C! */ int newVal = 42; break; case ANOTHER_VAL: ... break; } Note that even though it is now valid from C point of view, it remains invalid from C++ point of view. Symmetrically, in C++ case the the problem can be easily solved without the {}. Just remove the initializer from variable declaration and the code will become valid switch (val) { case VAL: int newVal; newVal = 42; break; case ANOTHER_VAL: /* Now it works in C++! */ ... break; } Note that even though it is now valid from C++ point of view, it remains invalid from C point of view.

从C23开始，C语言中的所有标签都将被解释为标签隐含的空语句(N2508)，也就是说，在C语言中不能将标签放在声明前面的问题将不再存在，并且不再需要上述基于;的修复。