Path: csiph.com!feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder4.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!85.12.16.69.MISMATCH!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx41.am4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: An enhancement
Message-ID: <4104@bongo-ra.co>
References: <531a5bb6-dc81-4eeb-9adf-1bf8eb310f65@googlegroups.com> <g22562Fjb2cU1@mid.individual.net>
In-Reply-To: <g22562Fjb2cU1@mid.individual.net>
X-Organisation: Weyland-Yutani
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 43
X-Complaints-To: http://netreport.virginmedia.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 23:16:55 UTC
Organization: virginmedia.com
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 23:16:55 GMT
X-Received-Bytes: 2209
X-Received-Body-CRC: 2194560400
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:136447

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:48:34 +1300
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 09/10/18 11:44, David Kleinecke wrote:
> > I want to propose an enhancement:
> > 
> > Add to C the statement type
> >      DO identifier SEMICOLON
> > where the identifier is a label. The meaning is that
> > the statement just identified is replaced by the
> > statement following the label.
> > 
> > This enhancement is potentially ambiguous in
> >      DO identifier SEMICOLON WHILE ... SEMICOLON
> > and this situation has come up in another thread
> > and triggered my post here. In order to preserve
> > conforming it is necessary that the ambiguity be
> > resolved as a DO-WHILE leaving
> >      identifier SEMICOLON
> > as the repeated code. But the whole reduces to
> >      WHILE .... SEMICOLON
> > 
> > The purpose of this enhancement is to enable
> > top-down coding in the sense Knuth wanted with
> > his literate programming. You can write code
> > like:
> >      int foo (int x) {
> >          if (x < 0) do trivial_case;
> >          else if (x == 0) do easy_case;
> >          else do usual_case;
> >          return;
> >       trivial_case: {
> >          .... }
> >       easy_case: {
> >          .... }
> >       usual_case: {
> >          .... }}
> > which is generally easier to understand if you have
> > given as labels good descriptive phrases.
> 
> What's wrong with calling functions with good descriptive names?

That was my thought too. Local functions which inherit the variables
of the parent function seem to me more useful.