Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucsfcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!arnold
From: arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: "break" statements
Message-ID: <678@ucsfcgl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Oct-85 23:34:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucsfcgl.678
Posted: Thu Oct 24 23:34:02 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Oct-85 07:21:48 EDT
References: <195@codas.UUCP> <723@mmintl.UUCP>
Reply-To: arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold)
Distribution: net
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab
Lines: 28

In article <723@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes:
>In article <195@codas.UUCP> mikel@codas.UUCP (Mikel Manitius) writes:
>>In Ratfor (a pre-processor to fortran (ugh!)) you can specify the level of
>>the break statement, meaning, out of how many loops you want to break,
>>thusly "break 2;" would break out of the current loop, and the one it is
>>nested within, I would on many occasions have liked to have had this feature.
>
>Better to put some kind of label on the statements being "broken" out of,
>end specify the label in the break statement.  Otherwise, it's too easy
>to miscount -- especially with both loop and switch statements.
>
>Frank Adams

NOT THIS RECORD!  NOT THIS RECORD!!!  AHHHHHHRRRRRGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

This debate went on for months in this newsgroup recently.  Please,
let's not start it up again.  Last time, the final decision was:

	some people like break <number>, and
	some people like break <label>, and
	some people don't like break at all ("it's not structured"), and
	some people like break as it is ("you should make it a function
		and return;").

I'm sure that if we debate it for a few *more* months we can add a
fifth item, but ask youself: is this discussion *really* necessary?

		Ken Arnold