Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!iuvax!purdue!bu-cs!buengc!bph
From: bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: The final word on GOTO (Don't I wis
Message-ID: <4447@buengc.BU.EDU>
Date: 6 Oct 89 05:17:38 GMT
References: <6396@ficc.uu.net> <725@thor.wright.EDU> <6430@ficc.uu.net>
Reply-To: bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton)
Followup-To: comp.lang.c
Distribution: na
Organization: Boston Univ. Col. of Eng.
Lines: 36

In article <6430@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>Code deleted, see parent article.
>Here's a goto-less version of the multiple
>lead-in case that should have you all puking:

Hwuawp!  Thanks, Pete.  Had the wrong thing for lunch, anyway... :-)

>	switch(format_char) {
>		case 'd': the stuff I put under d; if(0) {
>		case 'o': the stuff I put under o; if(0) {
>		case 'x': the stuff I put under x; if(0) {
>		case 'u': the stuff I put under u; }}}
>			the stuff I put under donum;
>	}
>
>I know it's not the best way to remove the gotos, but it's legal C
>without a single "unstructured" element.

I'd go out of my way to fix it so that I could just do

	switch(format_char) {
	    case 'd': the stuff I put under d; break;
	    case 'o': the stuff I put under o; break;
	    case 'x': the stuff I put under x; break;
	    case 'u': the stuff I put under u; break;
	}

	the stuff I put under donum;

Even if it meant (Gasp!) declaring a few variables outside the
switch and structuring the rest of my program in such a way
as to prevent needing such kludgery...

				--Blair
				  "At least they'd get
				   initialized properly..."