Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!ron From: ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: Nested loops? gotos? ANSI standard? Message-ID: <5366@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Wed, 17-Oct-84 15:52:54 EDT Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.5366 Posted: Wed Oct 17 15:52:54 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 18-Oct-84 19:14:19 EDT References: <129@ssc-vax.UUCP>, <1801@pegasus.UUCP> <4886@duke.UUCP>, <2085@rochester.UUCP> <4901@duke.UUCP> <2157@rochester.UUCP> Organization: Ballistic Research Lab Lines: 20 > The fact that it is a harmless goto doesn't mean that you cannot write > harmful gotos. You are not going to legislate correct code by removing GOTO. I am trying to avoid drastically changing the language to add redundant features. If you want to design such a language, come up with some other standard but don't call it C. Go back to the PASCAL and ADA users where you belong. I still see that break to the n-th power is just as harmful as goto. Just look for the label. It's just as easy to hide a loop begin as a statement label. > These problems (setjmp/longjmp or other anomalies) don't occur nearly as > often as the "I need to break three loops at once"-kind. At least not in > normal everyday user-written code (as opposed to 'system-wizard hackeries'). Amen, but setjmp/longjmp is not C and shouldn't be in the spec. This is a machine dependant kludge. -Ron