Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site redwood.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!hao!hplabs!hpda!fortune!rhino!redwood!rpw3
From: rpw3@redwood.UUCP (Rob Warnock)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re:  "break <label>" vs. "goto <label>"
Message-ID: <131@redwood.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-Jan-85 17:54:08 EST
Article-I.D.: redwood.131
Posted: Fri Jan 18 17:54:08 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Jan-85 05:36:44 EST
References: <7096@brl-tgr.ARPA> <7121@brl-tgr.ARPA> <1076@hcrvx1.UUCP> <289@callan.UUCP>
Organization: [Consultant], Foster City, CA
Lines: 33

+---------------
| How are 'do' loops to fit in with 'break label'?
| Does the 'label' go with the 'do' or the 'while'?
| 	Tim Smith | 	ihnp4!wlbr!callan!tim or ihnp4!cithep!tim
+---------------

The label goes with the "do", since it is a "do" statement. "Break <label>"
says: "Go to just outside the labelled statement". (See K & R for "statement".)

Keep in mind, that any "break <label>" should also (for orthogonality) work
on a "compound statement", not just on loops. The semantics are the same. The
normal "continue" construct can be thought of as a "break <label>" for which
the labelled statement is the loop BODY, not the loop itself.

	while (...){			while (...)  zork:{
		...				...
		if (...) continue;		if (...) break zork;
		...				...
	}				}

The application to multi-level loops is straightforward.

p.s. If we're going to change the language, I vote for the generic
"leave <label>" of any labelled statement (a. la. BLISS), rather than
twisting the meanings of the current "break" and "continue".


Rob Warnock
Systems Architecture Consultant

UUCP:	{ihnp4,ucbvax!dual}!fortune!redwood!rpw3
DDD:	(415)572-2607
USPS:	510 Trinidad Lane, Foster City, CA  94404