Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!ginosko!uunet!kddlab!titcca!sragwa!wsgw!socslgw!diamond
From: diamond@csl.sony.co.jp (Norman Diamond)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Declarations in switches, errors
Message-ID: <10888@riks.csl.sony.co.jp>
Date: 29 Sep 89 02:10:30 GMT
References: <561@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <10041@xanth.cs.odu.edu>
Reply-To: diamond@riks. (Norman Diamond)
Organization: Sony Computer Science Laboratory Inc., Tokyo, Japan
Lines: 21

In article <561@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr)writes:

>>I submit that executing a switch statement constitutes "normal entry"

In article <10041@xanth.cs.odu.edu> kremer@cs.odu.edu (Lloyd Kremer) writes:

>No, a switch statement is entered by a jump to a label.

Mr. Kremer, you start your reply with "No."  So you think that correct
execution of a switch statement constitutes abnormal entry to the block.
I conjecture that very few will agree with you.

Otherwise, it seems that both posters are correct.  Executing a switch
statement is both normal entry and a jump to a label.  The standard is
self-contradictory.

-- 
Norman Diamond, Sony Corporation (diamond@ws.sony.junet)
  The above opinions are inherited by your machine's init process (pid 1),
  after being disowned and orphaned.  However, if you see this at Waterloo or
  Anterior, then their administrators must have approved of these opinions.