Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!husc6!redsox!campbell
From: campbell@redsox.UUCP (Larry Campbell)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Improved switch statement
Message-ID: <577@redsox.UUCP>
Date: 18 Dec 88 16:28:55 GMT
References: <6590072@hplsla.HP.COM> <1106@etive.ed.ac.uk> <33528@bbn.COM> <1907@ogccse.ogc.edu> <574@redsox.UUCP> <1988Dec18.010151.27461@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: campbell@redsox.UUCP (Larry Campbell)
Organization: The Boston Software Works, Inc.
Lines: 22

In article <1988Dec18.010151.27461@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry
Spencer) objects to the indentation I used in my example of the "if"
statement present-day C++ forces you to use when you really want a "switch"
statement but the argument isn't an integer or the case labels aren't
constant expressions.

When I wrote my article, I _knew_ someone would flame the indentation, but
with the ghost of the immortal Will Strunk peering over my shoulder, I
decided not to address that issue.

While Henry's suggested indentation is an improvement, I still claim that no
matter how you indent it, the "if" statement isn't as clear as the "switch"
statement; and that a trivial relaxation of an unnecessary restriction,
which does no violence to the language, can make the "switch" statement
generally useful, which today it is not.

(Henry's other point, about the occasional necessity of violating coding
standards in certain special cases, is well taken.)
-- 
Larry Campbell                          The Boston Software Works, Inc.
campbell@bsw.com                        120 Fulton Street
wjh12!redsox!campbell                   Boston, MA 02146