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: Mon, 19 Oct 2026 08:47:25 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 59 Message-ID: <86y0btofoy.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> <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2026 15:47:30 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; logging-data="2320039"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+GJZfnpfEUzTYX69U3UMdY/0MoHT6ksn4="; posting-host="2933e73a5bc8b12c08d9b8de6577391c" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:kuR31LRb0RAAJczNdI8JuyTB5m0= sha1:6ohDrBrVvvkIn6WX0UwgN/2+Zzk= sha256:u05N49xF7nugYsgwJi14NQiiJVJe+MR/73PS+gMtEu4= sha1:Y+iQr86aiiKMxrqeSUmsepxN2A4= sha256:/JezWE05+rAuoypc7GOkd/X9yDSiSfH7yUWKP+0egi4= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:403325 Janis Papanagnou writes: > On 2026-10-18 12:48, David Brown wrote: > >> On 17/10/2026 01:29, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >> >>> On 2026-10-17 00:00, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> >>>> Tim Rentsch writes: >>>> >>>>> Keith Thompson writes: >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>>> 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 (;;)" : >>>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Unquestionably? Why? >>> >>> Why would one question an opinion? ;-) >> >> Time didn't word it as a personal opinion - he made it clear that he >> doesn't think anyone else could have a different opinion. > > You've noticed my smiley? (There was no need for an explanation.) Anyone who thinks my statement "the second ("for NAME (;;)") is unquestionably better" was meant as a statement of fact rather than a statement of opinion is an idiot. I think most people can see that I am careful in my writing, and also that I make an effort to differentiate statements of opinion, statements of belief, and statements of fact. My remark above is no exception to that practice. For the benefit of any other people who may have not seen the distinction here, please remember this: any statement that uses the word "better", when made without any reference to some sort of objective metric, is inherently a subjective statement. Any subjective statement (that does not fall into the category of being a statement of belief) is a statement of opinion. It's easy to see this simply by a process of elimination, because subjective statements are not facts, and vice versa. >> The C standards committee collectively reached an agreement counter >> to Tim's thoughts, so clearly his preferred variant is /not/ >> unquestionably better. > > "C" is "C", and Tim is Tim. (And we know both sufficiently.) :-) 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.