Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!dcl-cs!gdt!gdr!exspes
From: exspes@gdr.bath.ac.uk (P E Smee)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Scope of switch statements
Message-ID: <1989Nov14.104203.26192@gdt.bath.ac.uk>
Date: 14 Nov 89 10:42:03 GMT
References: <15743@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <1989Nov9.200639.8868@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: exspes@gdr.bath.ac.uk (P E Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol c/o University of Bath
Lines: 21

In article <1989Nov9.200639.8868@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <15743@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> tada@athena.mit.edu (Michael J Zehr) writes:
>>is this obfuscated code not ANSI or is the compiler broken?  
>
>It is legal, although ugly, ANSI C.  Also legal (but ugly) traditional C.
>Dennis Ritchie himself has officially blessed this disgusting construct,
>and indeed it has one or two legitimate uses.

Can you point me at a reference in 'The C programming language' (or in
any other reference that I'm likely to be able to find)?  I'm *not*
doubting you, but I *would* like to know exactly what it is supposed
to mean, then.  In particular, if you branch (via the switch) to one
of the cases inside the {}'s of the for, are you then under control of
the for?  That is, do you iterate the for or do you fall out of the
bottom bracket on the first go-through?

-- 
 Paul Smee               |    JANET: Smee@uk.ac.bristol
 Computer Centre         |   BITNET: Smee%uk.ac.bristol@ukacrl.bitnet
 University of Bristol   | Internet: Smee%uk.ac.bristol@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
 (Phone: +44 272 303132) |     UUCP: ...!uunet!ukc!gdr.bath.ac.uk!exspes