Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!sharkey!atanasoff!hascall
From: hascall@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (John Hascall)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Oh nooo! (gotos)
Message-ID: <1461@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu>
Date: 7 Sep 89 14:23:35 GMT
References: <7598@goofy.megatest.UUCP> <12793@pur-ee.UUCP>
Reply-To: hascall@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu.UUCP (John Hascall)
Organization: Iowa State Univ. Computation Center
Lines: 39

In article <12793@pur-ee.UUCP> lewie@ecn-ee.UUCP writes:
}[Dave Jones offers an example of what he thinks is a valid use of goto]:

    [using goto to get out of a nested control structure]

}I'm sure this comes up often enough, but the reason I'd say there's nothing
}wrong with this type of goto is that it is the equivalent of a continue
}with a label, i.e.:
 
}while foo (...) {
}    while (...) {
}	...
}	continue foo; 
}	...
}    }
}}

  I have often wished for something similar, my thoughts have tended toward
  the synatx:

	  continue [constant-integer-expression];
	  break [constant-integer-expression];

   where the [optional] expression indicated how many nested structures
   to continue or break, with the default being 1 (just like the current
   "continue" and "break").

   While we are on the subject of loops, how do people feel about the
   practice of using #define to "extend" the language?  For example:

   #define loop     for (;;)
   #define exitloop break

   loop {
	foo();
	if (bar()) exitloop;
   }

John Hascall