Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site 3comvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!decvax!decwrl!Glacier!oliveb!3comvax!mikes From: mikes@3comvax.UUCP (Mike Shannon) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: break, continue, return, goto (net.religion.c) Message-ID: <273@3comvax.UUCP> Date: Wed, 6-Nov-85 18:13:07 EST Article-I.D.: 3comvax.273 Posted: Wed Nov 6 18:13:07 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 9-Nov-85 07:07:24 EST References: <771@whuxl.UUCP> <516@busch.UUCP> <779@whuxl.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: 3Com Corp; Mountain View, CA Lines: 34 More from Mike Baldwin: > for (X) { > /******************/ > /* masses of code */ > /******************/ > if (error) { > bleck; > continue; > } > /******************/ > /* masses of code */ > /******************/ > } I often see good reason for break/continue when parsing arguments or other input (usually from a human) which may be of the form: SomeGoodStuff SomeGarbage SomeMoreGoodStuff But I *really* (religiously? :-)) question whether the above 'for' statement is good top-down design. I think I would at least re-code the above as: for(x) { if(p1() != error) { p2(); } else { bleck; } } If code bulk is causing readibility problems, rework your solution from the top down. Procedurize and reduce code bulk. [In Nomine Patri, et Fili, et Spiritu Santu. Amen.] -- Michael Shannon {ihnp4,hplabs}!oliveb!3comvax!mikes