Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: two's complement idea
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2020 19:06:29 -0800
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <87blqp4myy.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <4hBWF.107660$LY2.60603@fx23.am4> <r0ft7j$gun$1@dont-email.me> <lIMWF.216643$oQ3.163953@fx29.am4> <h926ovF25s3U6@mid.individual.net> <K2WWF.227060$vS6.23920@fx24.am4> <h93gm8F25s3U7@mid.individual.net> <h41XF.367918$Arx.178294@fx08.am4> <r0jumc$p8e$1@dont-email.me> <mQfXF.125675$Bf2.15315@fx39.am4> <r0k5um$375$1@dont-email.me> <%JhXF.102988$%G5.101221@fx03.am4> <r0kkn9$t6q$1@dont-email.me> <49pr2fphchn3dk2hiqv2bk8ml5oijs0d6e@4ax.com> <DZmXF.242725$_R5.99089@fx19.am4> <p3ks2f1vekfr0dckvguuvkrdr6lrpedrsl@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="32718fc629afc982786b25f35dff2a9d"; logging-data="7020"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+yZWjkcrsLTC8iK+4Bwk21"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:OlfW0BdzAMrTZov7kQV/8AIxUnc= sha1:UfDU3roOIn7Z+4OhJJ+nID58aBI=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c++:71609

Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> writes:
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 20:51:46 +0000, Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
[...]
>>If the inner loops are numbered from 1 (where the break statement is) to 
>>N (outermost loop), then you write the equivalent of:
>>
>>      break;         // or break 1
>>      break 2        // next outer loop
>>      break N;       // break out of all loops
>>
>>Not everyone likes applying an index like this (eg. you add or remove 
>>loops, and the numbers have to change); they prefer labeled statements.
[...]
> I like the labeled approach.  The problem with the "level" approach is
> that the insertion or deletion of a loop/switch in the hierarchy would
> normally not change where you wanted to break to, but if you've
> specified the break with a level, you *will* suddenly be breaking to a
> different loop.  The label makes the association with the loop/switch
> of interest explicit.
[...]

My objection to the "break 2" approach is that it requires humans to
count things.  Computers are really really good at counting things.
Let them.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */