Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!jh4o+
From: jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey T. Hutzelman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: switch break
Message-ID: <0b3CIgO00VpdMXcV4Q@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 5 Oct 90 19:55:24 GMT
References: <1990Oct3.160403.517@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <RVJJq3w163w@cybrspc>,
	<1990Oct5.165846.2461@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 21
In-Reply-To: <1990Oct5.165846.2461@Neon.Stanford.EDU>

dkeisen@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen) writes:

> In article <RVJJq3w163w@cybrspc> roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu (Roy
> M. Silvernail) writes:
>> Continue, though, is already a keyword for loop control. Giving it two
>> seperate and context-dependant tasks would, IMHO, _really_ screw
>> people up. 
>
> Break, though, is already a keyword for loop control. Giving it two
> separate and context-dependent tasks would, IMHO, _really_ screw
> people up.

Perhaps, but break already _has_ been given that meaning and plenty of C
programmers deal with it all the time with no problem, and, IMHO, it
makes sense.
-----------------
Jeffrey Hutzelman
America Online: JeffreyH11
Internet/BITNET:jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu, jhutz@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu

>> Apple // Forever!!! <<