Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!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: <10962@riks.csl.sony.co.jp>
Date: 16 Oct 89 03:08:06 GMT
References: <561@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <10041@xanth.cs.odu.edu> <10888@riks.csl.sony.co.jp> <1079@m3.mfci.UUCP>
Reply-To: diamond@riks. (Norman Diamond)
Organization: Sony Computer Science Laboratory Inc., Tokyo, Japan
Lines: 24

Regarding the old, dead topic:

>>>I submit that executing a switch statement constitutes "normal entry"
>>No, a switch statement is entered by a jump to a label.
>execution of a switch statement constitutes abnormal entry to the block.

In article <1079@m3.mfci.UUCP> karzes@mfci.UUCP (Tom Karzes) writes:

>For Pete's sake, this silly discussion was resolved long ago.  Let it die.

Yes.  It died about two weeks after I submitted my posting.

Last week I re-submitted five questions about the preprocessor.  I thought
that the original postings had gotten lost (a few weeks ago) in the maze of
one little twisty news passage through kddlabs to the rest of the world.

Before you criticize a poster for beating an old topic, why don't you
look to see how long ago the submission was actually written?

-- 
Norman Diamond, Sony Corp. (diamond%ws.sony.junet@uunet.uu.net seems to work)
  Should the preceding opinions be caught or     |  James Bond asked his
  killed, the sender will disavow all knowledge  |  ATT rep for a source
  of their activities or whereabouts.            |  licence to "kill".