Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rlgvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rlgvax!guy
From: guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: using break instead of goto
Message-ID: <338@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 9-Jan-85 18:22:58 EST
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.338
Posted: Wed Jan 9 18:22:58 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Jan-85 00:37:11 EST
References: <7149@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA
Lines: 16
> Please don't attribute to me something I didn't say. I was not advocating
> the elimination of goto's from C, but felt the put-down of the idea of break
> might not have been well thought out.
But what Ron was saying was that if you don't eliminate "goto", "break "
just amounts to "semantic sugar" for "goto "; if you want to discourage
people from using "goto" you can just put
#define breakloop goto
or something like it in a header file. Putting in a "break" statement which
acts exactly like "goto" but which is only accepted by the compiler in certain
contexts doesn't really add anything to the power of the language.
Guy Harris
{seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy