Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!caip!princeton!puvax2!pucc.BITNET!6063366
From: 6063366@pucc.BITNET (Carl Micarelli)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: What should be added to C
Message-ID: <602@pucc.BITNET>
Date: Tue, 20-May-86 18:11:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: pucc.602
Posted: Tue May 20 18:11:26 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 24-May-86 01:36:04 EDT
References: <1462@mmintl.UUCP> <590@brl-smoke.ARPA> <3570@nsc.UUCP>
Reply-To: 6063366@pucc.BITNET
Distribution: net
Organization: Princeton University Computing Center
Lines: 27

In article <1462@mmintl.UUCP>, Frank Adams (franka@mmintl.UUCP) suggests
adding the following to C:

>o Any sort of multi-level break statement.  There is no syntacticly clean
>way of adding this to C.

Good idea, but I don't think there's any syntactically clean way of
implementing a multi-level break statement in C -- at least no way that's
preferable to a goto.

>There are several things which are not part of the language definition, but
>which would be useful in compilers.  These consist mostly of flagging
>certain statements with (at least) warning messages.

Requiring compilers to flag constructions that look like bugs is a good idea,
but only if you establish a standard way of forcing the compiler to
(selectively) shut up.

>(Actually, I wouldn't be averse to a coding standard which forbade such
>things [as if (v = e) ... ], in favor of if (v = e, v) ...)

No!  = is an operator, v=e has a value, and its value should be usable
anywhere.  Making up special rules -- even for the noble purpose of protecting
programmers from carelessness or typos -- just complicates things.

Carl Micarelli -  BITNET: 6063366@pucc
                  UUCP:   ...allegra!psuvax1!pucc.bitnet!6063366