Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!rocksanne!sunybcs!kitty!baylor!peter
From: peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Re: break, continue, return, goto
Message-ID: <614@baylor.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 18-Jan-86 10:46:43 EST
Article-I.D.: baylor.614
Posted: Sat Jan 18 10:46:43 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 21-Jan-86 00:59:48 EST
References: <771@whuxl.UUCP> <9500029@iuvax.UUCP> <806@whuxl.UUCP>
Organization: The Power Elite, Houston, TX
Lines: 23

> > Too many times, programmers are seduced by 
> > the use of break for a quick solution without spending time to structure 
> > their program more. That is the same lesson we learned from advocating 
> > goto-less programs.
> 
> Oh, baloney!  I happen to think that my use of continue/return/break in
> my code is perfectly well thought out and structured.  If you think it's
> not just *BECAUSE* it uses continue/return/break, you're being too hasty.
> BREAK, RETURN AND CONTINUE ARE NOT THE SAME AS GOTO, FOLKS.  IF THEY WERE,
> THEY'D ALL BE CALLED "GOTO".

More fuel. I just (Wednesday) went through & put gotos into the main
program of all my little utilities. Why? Because "break" doesn't work
the same way as continue when you're inside a switch. I got sick and
tired of messing with flags & had the choice of either using gotos or
turning my switches (another structured goto, by the way) into if-then-else
chains. It would be nice if 'C' didn't overload keywords this way. Perhaps
'exit' could have been used here.

BTW: I wholeheartedly agree with Michael's comments.
-- 
-- Peter da Silva
-- UUCP: ...!shell!{baylor,graffiti}!peter; MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076