Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!nysernic!itsgw!batcomputer!cornell!rochester!pt!ius1.cs.cmu.edu!edw
From: edw@ius1.cs.cmu.edu (Eddie Wyatt)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: goto's and switch statements -- mild proposal
Message-ID: <1032@ius1.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 11-Aug-87 09:51:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: ius1.1032
Posted: Tue Aug 11 09:51:32 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Aug-87 06:11:18 EDT
References: <855@tjalk.cs.vu.nl> <2683@hoptoad.uucp> <916@haddock.ISC.COM>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 26
Summary: y

In article <916@haddock.ISC.COM>, karl@haddock.ISC.COM (Karl Heuer) writes:
> 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".
> 
> Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint


   Consider the problems "goto case N" cause when there are two switch
statements each with a case N label in the function block.

   Also just consider how you would implement the two switch statements
each with a case N label.  Since each label is a posible target of 
a goto, it must be put into a label table for that function block.
Now you have  multiple defined labels (label N) unless you do a few
ugly things to uniquely define each label - but then look up on
labels become more expensive.

-- 

					Eddie Wyatt

e-mail: edw@ius1.cs.cmu.edu