Clarify note on when gotos are valid in switches

[martinwilkerson-scisys]

The previous note could be read as a mistyped 2 element list - that goto statements are valid for the constant pattern and the classic switch statement. Changing the comma to parentheses makes it clear that 'the classic switch statement' is to clarify 'the constant pattern' rather than be an alternative to it.

Summary

Changed the note describing when gotos are valid in switches to reduce ambiguity. The original form could have been read as gotos being valid for the constant pattern and the classic switch statement, given a not unreasonable assumption that the comma could have been a typo for 'and'. Putting 'the classic switch statement' in parentheses makes it clearer that it's an aside to clarify the original statement.

Of course, I might have misunderstood entirely and the correct change would be to replace the comma with 'and'...

[BillWagner]

This is a good clarifying change @martinwilkerson-scisys

Thanks for contributing to docs, we appreciate it.

I've reviewed the change, and I'll now. You should see the change on the live site in the next day or two on our regular publishing cycle.