Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2026 22:11:52 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 28 Message-ID: <86fqxnlqlj.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <119qf6l$2rmg3$1@dont-email.me> <11ac2jv$1a84t$1@dont-email.me> <11ac783$1bkuo$1@kst.eternal-september.org> <11ad5eq$1l8hg$1@dont-email.me> <11ad9fg$cjm0$4@dont-email.me> <11addhr$1oakb$1@dont-email.me> <11aduuk$cjlv$1@dont-email.me> <20261010220212.000063fd@yahoo.com> <11ae56o$cjlv$4@dont-email.me> <20261010230355.00005189@yahoo.com> <11ae7eb$cjlv$6@dont-email.me> <11aeee0$24k8m$1@kst.eternal-september.org> <11aer17$286ml$2@dont-email.me> <11aeusp$29hmu$2@kst.eternal-september.org> <86mrsdpcgp.fsf@linuxsc.com> <11au6pr$3mdne$1@kst.eternal-september.org> <11auc0s$206gh$3@dont-email.me> <11b285v$121v2$2@dont-email.me> <11b2b6e$3pvda$4@dont-email.me> <86y0btofoy.fsf@linuxsc.com> <11b5gfr$1kr9u$5@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2026 05:11:55 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; logging-data="4179767"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19iiAYBG4QgFNx71tG8yJV6uibOcafivgc="; posting-host="638443b520da3b64a0cb261b66252cdc" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Asj0XX6Ku9rxU1AxpiCWqUt7590= sha1:WG1RshQ5Hg97THEXj6mvufDDD8A= sha256:o8QCU+nFePC7g6ndOAbyw1Uxoa6vK/DBs/ZFQbyTNQM= sha1:lg6FQ6N2VdESgyVkkbHxdNwFV+c= sha256:VkQ/pLAdX5663OGziECLC4O6Yfn1vlclzvk0S9Nqwz4= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:403824 Janis Papanagnou writes: > [ with big snips of lots of irrelevant stuff ] > > On 2026-10-19 17:47, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >>> On 2026-10-18 12:48, David Brown wrote: >>> >>>> The C standards committee collectively reached an agreement counter >>>> to Tim's thoughts, so clearly his preferred variant is /not/ >>>> unquestionably better. >> >> My confidence in the collective wisdom of the ISO C committee has >> declined in recent years, and sadly for more than just the last >> few years. So learning that they have settled (even if that might >> change in the future) on the "label: for(...)" approach is >> disappointing, but not surprising. > > I understand the disappointment when something evolves differently, > where own opinions or own "educated or acquired wisdom" diverges. > (Such expressed disappointment is observable with some other poster > here as well.) > > Opinions are fine, arguments are better. That depends on what might be called an argument. Most of the "arguments" in comp.lang.c are just a long series of statements of opinion.