Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site ndm20
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!ndm20!tp
From: tp@ndm20
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: "break" statements
Message-ID: <3400017@ndm20>
Date: Sun, 3-Nov-85 08:25:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ndm20.3400017
Posted: Sun Nov  3 08:25:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Nov-85 07:04:23 EST
References: <678@ucsfcgl.UUCP>
Lines: 19
Nf-ID: #R:ucsfcgl.UUCP:-67800:ndm20:3400017:000:724
Nf-From: ndm20!tp    Nov  3 07:25:00 1985


>/* Written 10:15 am  Oct 30, 1985 by preece@ccvaxa.UUCP in ndm20:net.lang.c */
>> /* 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?

Yep. And for the same reasons.

Terry Poot
Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers
(214)739-4741
Usenet: ...!{allegra|ihnp4}!convex!smu!ndm20!tp
CSNET:  ndm20!tp@smu
ARPA:   ndm20!tp%smu@csnet-relay.ARPA