Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sdcrdcf.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!wjh12!genrad!decvax!decwrl!amd!dual!zehntel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!lwall From: lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: Breaking out of several nested loops (& ANSI C) Message-ID: <1390@sdcrdcf.UUCP> Date: Tue, 16-Oct-84 13:22:35 EDT Article-I.D.: sdcrdcf.1390 Posted: Tue Oct 16 13:22:35 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 20-Oct-84 06:43:07 EDT References: <1801@pegasus.UUCP> <468@voder.UUCP> Reply-To: lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall) Organization: System Development Corp. R+D, Santa Monica Lines: 32 In article <468@voder.UUCP> gino@voder.UUCP (Gino Bloch) writes: >Well, I have an opinion too. I imagine trying to find WHERE the break or >goto takes me to... So do I, and so do I... Hypothetical examples of named breaks never ring quite true, because they neglect the fact that most loops have a semantic value. I think this point has been neglected by the pro-namers. Named loops (and blocks) are useful *abstractions*, and it's always nice to be able to name your abstractions. Arguments about whether your abstraction should be named at the beginning or the end miss the point. If a loop is to be labeled, it should be labeled at both ends. I can just see it: the Los Angeles City Council argueing about whether to post an "Entering Los Angeles" sign at the north end or the south end of I-5... _ Now, does that mean we should add named loops to C? me genoito! I don't think you should turn C into Ada*, for two reasons: 1) Those who think they don't like Ada will think they won't like C. (Yes, that's what I meant to say.) 2) Those who think they like Ada will already have switched to Ada. (Yes, yes, I know. Hope springs eternal...) For all her faults, Ada knows an abstraction when she sees one. C is easy, but a clever lady is worth waiting for. Larry Wall {allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!lwall *Ada iartoUSDOD(AJPO).