Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!unmvax!nmtsun!nmtvax!dwho
From: dwho@nmtvax.nmt.edu (David Olix)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: The final word on GOTO (Don't I wis
Message-ID: <154@nmtvax.nmt.edu>
Date: 6 Oct 89 22:00:56 GMT
References: <6396@ficc.uu.net> <725@thor.wright.EDU> <6430@ficc.uu.net> <4447@buengc.BU.EDU> <867@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <4462@buengc.BU.EDU>
Reply-To: dwho@nmtvax.UUCP (David Olix)
Distribution: na
Organization: CS Dept., New Mexico Tech., Socorro
Lines: 24

In article <867@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
>
>  [...] In the original the "donum:"
>code was only executed if a case was matched in the switch. [...]

Would the following be too terribly unreadble?

case_matched = 1;
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;
  default:  case_matched = 0;
}
if (case_matched)
  the stuff I put under donum;


I'm not really arguing whether or not to use goto's here; I'm arguing that
adding one flag (case_matched) does not a 'whole lot of flags' make.

--David Olix (dwho@nmtvax.nmt.edu)