Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!uwmcsd1!leah!itsgw!nysernic!rutgers!ames!ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: goto's in C: an opinion...
Message-ID: <466@sugar.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Aug-87 23:03:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: sugar.466
Posted: Mon Aug  3 23:03:29 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Aug-87 07:24:52 EDT
References: <3289@bigburd.PRC.Unisys.COM> <7571@beta.UUCP> <6603@think.UUCP> <1125@nu3b2.UUCP>
Organization: Sugar Land UNIX - Houston, TX
Lines: 33
Keywords: C, goto, style
Summary: You must be badly fragmented.

Was that posting just a fragment of your imagination? You're actually
suggesting that you replace a non-structured construct with one that is
no better structured, requires more work on the part of the programmer,
and executes slower?

I though I heard you suggesting that:

	if(...) {
		while(...) {
			for(...) {
				....
				goto loopexit;
			}
		}
	}
loopexit:

be replaced by:

	struct jmp_buf loopexit;

	if(!setjmp(&jmp_buf)) {
		if(...) {
			while(...) {
				for(...) {
					....
					longjmp(&jmp_buf, 1);
				}
			}
		}
	}
-- 
-- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!seismo!soma!uhnix1!sugar!peter (I said, NO PHOTOS!)