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: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 14:22:46 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 17 Message-ID: <86mrsdpcgp.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <119qf6l$2rmg3$1@dont-email.me> <11ac0mi$19kfd$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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 21:22:47 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; logging-data="3859343"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18pM5YqBfdA5+37UgAEfodydjrZGfwLCcM="; posting-host="6aa7975ca949d05eced06ab246205481" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:6uDV3sH46hYJxH9PC5q0kqMFz8E= sha1:sa/xsoqm6e1RSvPMXW2R/plzEWw= sha256:3UJnrf2GqxLngfEYeUOxoD69Kt9B2NVKbNsV9wgurKU= sha1:hP3oo8mziQ35gbSuoXuuK5so+zY= sha256:ONfy5mXfIQXnC5CdIJWeAJ92HELIRjjHyXLUBLs3VK8= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:403221 Keith Thompson writes: > I find "break NAME;", where "NAME" is the name of an enclosing > construct, unambiguously better than "break N;", where N is the > number of levels to break out of. [...] Definitely. > There's a proposal for C2y to use goto labels as loop names, and a > competing one to define a new syntax like "for NAME (;;)" : > > https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3355.htm > https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3377.pdf I'm not particularly a fan of multi-level break/continue. But if we're going to have one of these, the second ("for NAME (;;)") is unquestionably better.