Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.8 $; site ccvaxa
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
From: preece@ccvaxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: "break" statements
Message-ID: <2600026@ccvaxa>
Date: Wed, 30-Oct-85 11:15:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.2600026
Posted: Wed Oct 30 11:15:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Nov-85 04:18:54 EST
References: <678@ucsfcgl.UUCP>
Lines: 14
Nf-ID: #R:ucsfcgl.UUCP:-67800:ccvaxa:2600026:000:499
Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!preece    Oct 30 10:15:00 1985


> /* Written  7:22 pm  Oct 28, 1985 by mikes@3comvax.UUCP in
> ccvaxa:net.lang.c */ Advocates of 'break <label>' and 'break
> <nesting-level-number>' should meditate a long time to be sure they are
> not trying to fool themselves.  These break statements are just a way
> to disguise a goto statement.
----------
Do you also object (it's EXACTLY the same argument) to having more
than one "return" statement in a function definition?

-- 
scott preece
gould/csd - urbana
ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece