Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!uc!cs.umn.edu!cybrspc!roy
From: roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: switch break
Keywords: switch break first language
Message-ID: <B1JNq1w163w@cybrspc>
Date: 7 Oct 90 03:39:22 GMT
References: <1990Oct5.165846.2461@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN
Lines: 39

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.
> 
> Oh hell, I guess they'll muddle through somehow.

Actually, Dave, I didn't really present my point clearly. I should have
said "seperate, context-dependant and _differing_ tasks".

The break keyword, of course, is used now to:

1) terminate a case in the switch statement.

2) force immediate termination of a for, while or do loop.

Thinking about this, I find both uses consistant with each other, as
they both stop the current iteration of a control structure.

The suggested addition to continue, though, isn't consistant. Currently,
continue causes the current control structure to reiterate. The
suggested use within a switch would do exactly the opposite, and cause
the control structure to progress. A switch can be viewed as a loop that
only executes once. Redefining continue within a switch? Just a disaster
waiting to compile. (ask the nameless AT&T programmer about break vs.
if...)

But you're right... we'll all muddle through. ;-)
--
Roy M. Silvernail |+|  roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu  |+| #define opinions ALL_MINE;
main(){float x=1;x=x/50;printf("It's only $%.2f, but it's my $%.2f!\n",x,x);}
"This is cyberspace." -- Peter da Silva  :--:  "...and I like it here!" -- me