Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-sally.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!kpno!ut-sally!crandell
From: crandell@ut-sally.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: "Break" and other ways out of loops and switches
Message-ID: <159@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Aug-83 19:32:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.159
Posted: Wed Aug 24 19:32:21 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Aug-83 21:05:52 EDT
References: <302@ihuxq.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 12


     I cast a strong vote in favor of that proposition.  Incidentally, if
you're interested in discovering another language (a small and very
orderly one) that incorporates that feature, look at REPORT ON THE
PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE PLZ/SYS by Snook, Bass, Roberts, Nahapetian and Fay
(Springer-Verlag, 1978).  You'll probably notice that PLZ/SYS doesn't
have a GOTO, and the loop-break statement EXIT (probably from DEC Pascal)
plus the RETURN statement (from FORTRAN -- no, it's not the same as the
C version) have substantially obviated it.
     It seems reasonable that loop labels are somewhat "safer" than
statement labels, since they are more difficult to dislocate.  I haven't
heard any Certified Programming Moralists rule on it, however.