Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!necntc!ima!haddock!karl
From: karl@haddock.ISC.COM (Karl Heuer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: goto's and switch statements -- mild proposal
Message-ID: <916@haddock.ISC.COM>
Date: Mon, 10-Aug-87 16:44:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: haddock.916
Posted: Mon Aug 10 16:44:26 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Aug-87 05:46:30 EDT
References: <855@tjalk.cs.vu.nl> <2683@hoptoad.uucp>
Reply-To: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Organization: Interactive Systems, Boston
Lines: 24

In article <2683@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
>What bothers me is that I can't say ["goto default" and "goto case N"].

It's interesting that this restriction exists, in view of the oft-stated claim
that the reason that switch statements have automatic fallthrough (rather than
automatic breakswitch) is that "case labels are just like real labels".

My own off-the-wall opinion is that "goto default" and "goto case N" should be
legal; non-switch labels should have to be declared (this allows one to reduce
the scope); label pointers should be allowed (with undefined effect if a goto
in one function references a label from another); it should be illegal to fall
into a label (one must instead write "goto foo; foo:"); and switch statements
should automatically break at the end of each case (thus freeing the keyword
"break" for loop exit exclusively).  Oh yes, this also requires a new notation
for multiple cases ("case '0'..'9':" or whatever).

These are just ideas, not a serious proposal.  Although they could be phased
in gradually, I do not expect any of them to happen in the forseeable future.
At best, some compilers/linters may introduce extensions/warnings for some of
my positive/negative points.

Flames are welcome, but please send them by e-mail.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint