Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!chaph.usc.edu!alcor.usc.edu!jeenglis
From: jeenglis@alcor.usc.edu (Joe English Muffin)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: The Sins of K&R (break n)
Keywords: break, switch, loops, number
Message-ID: <12288@chaph.usc.edu>
Date: 2 Oct 90 02:32:48 GMT
References: <31604@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <12180@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <2487@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> <4b0hPyW00Vp8M7qVd1@andrew.cmu.edu> <12252@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <901@gtenmc.UUCP>
Sender: news@chaph.usc.edu
Followup-To: alt.cfutures
Organization: Joe's Homeopathic Hangover Remedies
Lines: 42
Nntp-Posting-Host: alcor.usc.edu

ravim@gtenmc.UUCP (Ravi K Mandava ( Vox Populi )) writes:

>To solve the original problem (or sin, whatever) (i.e. to be able to break
>out of a switch statement within a 'for' or 'while' loop), why not change
>the 'break' statement to take an argument (like the 'return' statement does)
>that denotes the number of loops (including switch body) that you would
>like to get out of?

Or, you could just use a (GASP!) goto.

'break n;' means the reader has to count 
the enclosing loops; this would probably
be painful for n >= 3 or so.  Under the 
assumption that a symbolic name is better 
than a number,  a well-placed goto is
probably "more structured" than a multi-level
break.

>IMHO, this has some advantages like
>	(a) you can still use the old syntax (like having to use 'break'
>	    in each 'case' body thus allowing 'fall through' wherever it
>	    is useful and having the ability to break out of the innermost
>	    'for' or 'while' loop)

Ditto goto.

>	(b) you can break out of any number of loops thus eliminating
>	    the need of using flags

Ditto goto.

>The same syntax can be extented to the 'continue' statement as well.


Hmm... Has anyone started a "Frequently Proposed
Ways to Futz With C" list?  Preferably with a
list of reasons why it shouldn't be changed?


--Joe English

  jeenglis@alcor.usc.edu