Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.8 $; site ccvaxa Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece From: preece@ccvaxa.UUCP Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: I break for(;;) loops Message-ID: <2600016@ccvaxa> Date: Thu, 3-Oct-85 15:57:00 EDT Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.2600016 Posted: Thu Oct 3 15:57:00 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 5-Oct-85 06:31:52 EDT References: <1820@brl-tgr.ARPA> Lines: 24 Nf-ID: #R:brl-tgr.ARPA:-182000:ccvaxa:2600016:000:1043 Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!preece Oct 3 14:57:00 1985 /* Terry Poot writes: > Some of us feel the same about breaks as we do about gotos. I won't use > it, or continue either, and I won't let anyone in my shop use it. It is > just a goto with an implicit label, and destroys the ability to > determine program flow from the FORM of the source even more > drastically,... ---------- Well, it's nice to be able to infer meaning from form (we love you, Mies), but break and continue are much clearer than the alternative of bracketing off the remaining code within the loop. If there's more than one break in a loop any other method leads to horrible structures that may explicitly expose the flow of the program but are guaranteed to give the reader instant migraine. I think you should lay out your code so that the break is very obvious (separate line, with comment), but you shouldn't avoid using them. It is unfortunate that they used the same word for breaking from a loop and terminating a case clause in a switch statement. -- scott preece gould/csd - urbana ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece