Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: problems/risks due to programming language
Message-ID: <SUY1G_Fxds13@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 23 Feb 90 17:25:15 GMT
References: <1597@awdprime.UUCP> <8133@hubcap.clemson.edu> <10839@june.cs.washington.edu>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 41

With apologies to all the people tired of Bill Wolfe's Adaphilic C-bashing,
the people arguing that you *need* break are all wet. Observe:

	switch(c)
	{
		case '0', '1', '2', '3', '4', '5', '6', '7', '8', '9':
			digit();
		default:
			not_a_digit();
	}

On the other hand, the people (inlcuding Bill) arguing that switch...break
is an unalloyed disaster are also all wet.  The C SWITCH is not a Pascal
CASE, it's a computed goto:

	switch(c)
	{
		case '%':
			stuff...
			break;
		case '$':
			stuff...
			break;
		case '\\':
			nextc = getchar();
			if(nextc == '%' || nextc == '$')
				c = nextc;
			else
				ungetc(nextc, stdin);
			/* FALLTHROUGH */
		default:
			lots...
			of...
			stuff...
			break;
	}

The right solution for Next C (whether it be P or D) is to defang break
by using a different keyword for breaking from a switch or exiting from
a loop. I would suggest that 'break' be given a mandatory keyword argument:
either 'break switch', 'break for', and so on.
-- 
 _--_|\  Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>.
/      \
\_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure!
      v  "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'