Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sdcc6.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcc6!ix269 From: ix269@sdcc6.UUCP Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: Which is better? Message-ID: <1840@sdcc6.UUCP> Date: Wed, 19-Dec-84 05:23:09 EST Article-I.D.: sdcc6.1840 Posted: Wed Dec 19 05:23:09 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 21-Dec-84 00:37:28 EST References: <13900013@acf4.UUCP> <291@rlgvax.UUCP> Reply-To: ix269@sdcc6.UUCP (Jim) Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center Lines: 27 Summary: fig() Might it be noted that if-else pairs are accepted as one statement? Break is a jump (not machine phrase) out of the switch, so the big question ends up being will your optimizer discover that one of the conditionals is jumping twice (if-else as aversed to if-break-break)? The source code for the if-else is better looking, and perhaps even the cost of an extra jump might not be worth the ugliness (unless this is a kernal ugly). This leaves things in a different light than merely style, but welcome to a higher level language :-). switch (A) { case 0: if (B) { /* this */ break; } /* else */ break; case 1: if (B) { /* this */ } else { /* that */ } break; }