Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: goto considered helpful
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2024 10:11:56 -0800
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <87o71fv4er.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <vi54e9$3ie0o$1@dont-email.me> <vitjgg$1tukq$2@dont-email.me> <vj1bss$325uo$1@dont-email.me> <vj1h4i$335q1$2@dont-email.me> <vj1mhi$34p7h$1@dont-email.me> <vj1prj$35je4$1@dont-email.me> <vj7dup$he7i$1@dont-email.me> <vjasuj$17uod$1@dont-email.me> <vjc87h$1apid$1@paganini.bofh.team> <vjcbe1$1jns0$1@dont-email.me> <87wmg5x4b1.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vjd96b$1pbed$1@dont-email.me> <87jzc5wx3s.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vjdde8$1q2to$2@dont-email.me> <87frmtwuzq.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <20241212144454.00003b83@yahoo.com> <87wmg4vaeb.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vjgsfq$3ajis$1@dont-email.me> <vjh4qc$3c7nb$1@dont-email.me> <vjhc8m$3e9an$1@dont-email.me> <vjhg7j$3f5kg$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2024 19:11:59 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="66c77e050ec176338b057ef443530fd1"; logging-data="3732068"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/kv0Wp3m0hCXt8k/ZewFc9"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JBoR1VPIm8mO/odyOTOKlkyJlVE= sha1:FcW0/J2gv4qSuqgXbPMkXyId9zc=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:389641

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 13/12/2024 13:19, David Brown wrote:
>> On 13/12/2024 12:12, bart wrote:
[...]
>>> I've had a quick look through my codebases (not C), and I couldn't
>>> see an example of a numbered break. All I could find was the
>>> equivalant of:
>>>
>>>     break              # the vast majority
>>>     break all
>>>
>>> The latter breaks out of the outermost loop.
>>>
>> So you have a feature (numbered breaks) in your language that you
>> never use, but have been recommending here as a useful addition to
>> C?
>
> I'm saying that if you don't have the general feature, then the more
> limited one might be worth considering, as it will take care of most
> of the use-cases not covered by break.

In current C, we don't have either feature.

I suggest that covering *most* of the use-cases would not be good
enough.  Adding your "break all" to C (defining it in the standard
and implementing it in compilers) would not be significantly easier
than adding "break LABEL".  I see no point in adding a partial
feature when a more complete feature is (a) just as easy, and (b)
has ample precedent in other languages.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */