Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!ron
From: ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: using break <label> instead of goto <label>
Message-ID: <7357@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 15-Jan-85 15:23:32 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.7357
Posted: Tue Jan 15 15:23:32 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 18-Jan-85 03:26:31 EST
References: <7149@brl-tgr.ARPA> <338@rlgvax.UUCP> <1471@ritcv.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 18

> All of this ignores, of course, any assessment of the problems of
> incorporating this facility in C relative to its worth.  I've no
> illusions about the difficulty, especially when you realize that all
> labels are potential targets of a goto but some are also possible
> referents of the new break.  But I was addressing the absolute utility
> of the construct, rather than its relative utility when considering
> the engineering problems of such a retrofit.
> -- 
Agreed.  I'm not saying break-to-label isn't a good thing for some language
to have.  There's a lot of things we could put into languages if we were
starting over.  What I'm arguing against is making frivolous changes to an
existing language.  So far nearly all of the proposed extensions that the
committe has been proposing, do not change the language when it can be
avoided.

If we trully want to be structured we'd get rid of "break" and "goto"

-Ron