Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!romp!auschs!awdprime!fenway!mjones
From: mjones@fenway.uucp (Mike Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: problems/risks due to programming language
Message-ID: <1597@awdprime.UUCP>
Date: 22 Feb 90 18:40:36 GMT
References: <201@puma.ge.com> <8111@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Sender: news@awdprime.UUCP
Reply-To: mjones@fenway.tcspa.ibm.com (Mike Jones)
Organization: IBM AWD, Palo Alto
Lines: 17

In article <8111@hubcap.clemson.edu> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu writes:
>   By requiring the use of a GOTO during normal processing (as C does
>   with its switch..break system), C encourages its programmers to get 
>   into the habit of using its restricted GOTO routinely.  As AT&T has
>   recently discovered, that can easily prove to be an expensive habit. 

Ah, I see it now. The problem here is that you keep insisting that the
use of break in switch statements is "normal processing". "Common" it
certainly is, but the very purpose of break is to *change* "normal"
processing. The switch statement in C is NOT equivalent to an 
if...else if...else statement group. It is common practice to use the
break statement to make it behave that way. Is this a design flaw? Quite
possibly, but it's not the same flaw you're claiming.
Mike Jones		|  The basic state of software development is that
AIX Development		|  we're all eating raw food because no one has the
Kingston, NY		|  time to learn how to cook.
.!uunet!ibmps2!aix!mjones