== Why is this an issue?

The ``++default++`` clause should take appropriate action. Having an empty ``++default++`` is a waste of keystrokes.


=== Noncompliant code example

[source,csharp]
----
enum Fruit
{
  Apple,
  Orange,
  Banana
}

void PrintName(Fruit fruit)
{
  switch(fruit)
  {
    case Fruit.Apple:
      Console.WriteLine("apple");
      break;
    default:  //Noncompliant
      break;
  }
}
----


=== Compliant solution

[source,csharp]
----
enum Fruit
{
  Apple,
  Orange,
  Banana
}

void PrintName(Fruit fruit)
{
  switch(fruit)
  {
    case Fruit.Apple:
      Console.WriteLine("apple");
      break;
    default:
      throw new NotSupportedException();
  }
}
----
or

[source,csharp]
----
void PrintName(Fruit fruit)
{
  switch(fruit)
  {
    case Fruit.Apple:
      Console.WriteLine("apple");
      break;
  }
}
----


=== Exceptions

``++default++`` clauses containing only a comment are ignored with the assumption that they are empty on purpose and the comment documents why.


ifdef::env-github,rspecator-view[]

'''
== Implementation Specification
(visible only on this page)

=== Message

Remove this empty "default" clause.


=== Highlighting

the whole default clause


'''
== Comments And Links
(visible only on this page)

=== relates to: S108

=== relates to: S131

=== on 5 Feb 2016, 16:42:33 Ann Campbell wrote:
Normally RSPEC-131 would be expected to cover this case, but in C# that rule is thought to make too much noise, while at the same time, there is still a desire to flag and eliminate empty ``++default++``s

endif::env-github,rspecator-view[]