Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!aglew
From: aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: A good use of a bad feature
Message-ID: <2600050@ccvaxa>
Date: Sat, 10-May-86 16:19:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.2600050
Posted: Sat May 10 16:19:00 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 25-May-86 14:16:56 EDT
References: <1853@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU>
Lines: 38
Nf-ID: #R:mit-eddie.MIT.EDU:1853:ccvaxa:2600050:000:1093
Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!aglew    May 10 15:19:00 1986


>/* Written 10:49 am  May  4, 1986 by root@icst-cmr in net.lang.c */
>You will find much disagreement on that point, I'm afraid. Fall thru is
>more flexible. You can always break, but often cases are related so that
>a particular case requires a superset of another case. It is to DMR's
>credit that he realized this feature. I sure wouldn't have thought of it.
>/* End of text from net.lang.c */

And what do you do if you have more than one case which is a superset of
another? Eg.

	case A      case B
	      \    /
	       \  /
             case C
                |
                |
                break

Dup code or use gotos. The worst is when people use combinations of gotos
and fall-through:

	case A: 
		...
		goto case_C;
	case B:
		...
		/* fall through */
	case C:
	case_C:
		...
		break;

There should be one way to do things. Special case constructs should only be
used if they crop up frequently. I don't think fall through qualifies.

Andy "Krazy" Glew. Gould CSD-Urbana.    USEnet:  ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!aglew
1101 E. University, Urbana, IL 61801    ARPAnet: aglew@gswd-vms