Xref: utzoo comp.software-eng:3117 comp.lang.ada:3409 comp.lang.c:26709 comp.lang.lisp:2891 comp.lang.misc:4376 comp.lang.modula2:2157 comp.lang.pascal:3200
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!software.org!ciardo
From: ciardo@software.org (Gianfranco Ciardo)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.modula2,comp.lang.pascal
Subject: Re: problems/risks due to programming language, stories requested
Message-ID: <672@software.software.org>
Date: 8 Mar 90 21:44:48 GMT
References: <1004@micropen> <8218@hubcap.clemson.edu> <2596@gmu90x.gmu.edu> <Mar.8.10.19.49.1990.3812@atanasoff.rutgers.edu>
Sender: news@software.org
Reply-To: ciardo@software.org (Gianfranco Ciardo)
Organization: Software Productivity Consortium, Herndon, Virginia
Lines: 26

In article <Mar.8.10.19.49.1990.3812@atanasoff.rutgers.edu> lou@atanasoff.rutgers.edu (Lou Steinberg) writes:
> > >> A multi-case switch is very handy in many situations to reduce identical
> > >> treatments for similar cases.  
> ARGHHH!!  That is what subroutines (and macros) are for - to handle
> common code.  And if your language makes them too expensive, either in
> terms of run time or in terms of programmer effort, then THAT is an
> even worse problem with the language than the problems with break.

I think you miss completely the point.
Using subroutines is not going to help you make the code shorter, more compact,
or less repetitious (which is not) in a case like this:

          switch (what_to_do) {
                    case FIVE_THINGS:
                            <statementA>;
                    case FOUR_THINGS:
                            <statementB>;
                    case THREE_THINGS:
                            <statementC>;
                    case TWO_THINGS:
                            <statementD>;
                    case ONE_THING:
                            <statementE>;
                    case NOTHING:
                            break;
          }