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: <937@haddock.ISC.COM>
Date: Thu, 13-Aug-87 13:17:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: haddock.937
Posted: Thu Aug 13 13:17:46 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Aug-87 09:26:50 EDT
References: <855@tjalk.cs.vu.nl> <2683@hoptoad.uucp> <916@haddock.ISC.COM> <930@haddock.ISC.COM> <1035@ius1.cs.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Organization: Interactive Systems, Boston
Lines: 16

In article <1035@ius1.cs.cmu.edu> edw@ius1.cs.cmu.edu (Eddie Wyatt) writes:
|In article <930@haddock.ISC.COM>, karl@haddock.ISC.COM (Karl Heuer) writes:
|>[Context: karl@haddock suggested that switch labels should behave more like
|>normal labels; and that the latter should have to be declared, giving them
|>block scope; and a bunch of related ideas.]
|
|But if you only support a [case] label's scope over the switch statement
|it is defined in then you have introduced a non-orthogonal feature into
|the language since C label definitions extend over the whole function
|block, not just the block they are defined in.

Read my bits, Eddie.  Both my original suggestion and my followup (which you
quoted) explicitly said that normal labels ought to have block scope.  This
would *remove* a non-orthogonality in the language.

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