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