Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!decvax!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: <971@haddock.ISC.COM>
Date: Wed, 19-Aug-87 15:03:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: haddock.971
Posted: Wed Aug 19 15:03:23 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Aug-87 03:14:14 EDT
References: <855@tjalk.cs.vu.nl> <2683@hoptoad.uucp> <916@haddock.ISC.COM> <8414@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Organization: Interactive Systems, Boston
Lines: 13

In article <8414@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>[karl@haddock writes:]
>> ... my original suggestion... explicitly said that normal labels ought to
>> have block scope.  This would *remove* a non-orthogonality in the language.
>
>Unfortunately, it would also break substantial amounts of existing code.

As an intermediate step, declared labels could have block scope, while
undeclared labels would still have function scope.  Such an implementation
would be non-conforming, but only because the new keyword "label" invades the
user's namespace.

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