Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #402647 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-03 08:43 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-10-11 22:12 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 245 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-03 08:43 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-03 11:24 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-05 22:15 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-03 14:22 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-03 18:02 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-04 00:24 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-03 17:36 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-03 16:31 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-04 10:23 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-04 12:18 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-04 16:20 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-05 21:34 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 16:04 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-04 16:18 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-04 16:09 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-04 16:59 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-04 18:30 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-10-04 19:49 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-04 20:35 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-04 22:27 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-04 22:47 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-04 21:59 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-04 23:38 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-05 01:24 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-05 21:48 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-06 00:11 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 09:49 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-06 11:12 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 12:41 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-10-06 12:33 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-06 15:16 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-06 14:37 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-06 17:27 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-06 23:14 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 01:25 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-07 04:19 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-07 06:28 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 11:39 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-07 12:57 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 11:32 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-07 15:10 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 19:41 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-08 04:49 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-08 12:24 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-07 09:07 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 11:49 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-07 13:11 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 16:17 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-06 15:32 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 17:25 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-06 14:39 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-06 19:48 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-06 18:12 +0000
[OT] substances (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-06 21:50 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 17:06 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-06 19:25 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-07 10:28 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-07 15:16 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-07 16:40 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-08 07:24 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 16:08 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-06 23:45 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 17:08 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-07 10:35 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-06 12:33 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 17:16 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 16:41 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2026-10-06 12:14 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 12:43 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2026-10-06 11:47 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 16:05 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-07 00:42 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 13:52 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-07 14:06 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-07 23:31 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-05 21:32 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-06 06:07 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-05 16:42 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-05 18:05 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-06 09:04 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 04:11 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-06 21:40 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-06 00:59 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-06 08:16 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 04:21 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-06 14:43 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-06 17:36 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-06 20:36 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-04 00:20 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-04 09:05 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-04 23:44 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-05 01:46 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-04 20:48 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-05 06:24 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-05 11:09 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-06 05:22 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-06 05:26 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-10 00:25 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-10 01:58 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-09 19:17 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-10 11:53 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 14:01 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-10 14:11 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-10 21:34 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-10 21:58 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-10 17:50 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-11 05:52 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-11 21:16 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-11 23:38 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 11:58 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-11 14:42 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 14:39 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 15:35 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-11 14:42 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 17:23 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-11 17:48 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 19:10 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-12 07:01 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 16:41 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 20:08 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-10 22:02 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-10 19:03 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-10 22:29 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 21:55 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-10 23:03 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 22:33 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-10 21:53 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 23:16 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-11 15:29 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-10 15:30 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-10 22:58 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-11 09:09 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-10-11 10:14 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-11 21:12 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 03:58 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 15:32 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-11 01:58 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 01:43 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-11 09:12 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 04:07 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 20:13 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 10:36 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-11 04:26 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 13:35 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-11 06:13 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 14:51 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-11 15:33 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-11 09:01 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-11 19:17 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 18:57 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 14:28 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 23:02 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 16:29 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-12 04:03 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-12 22:02 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 21:09 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-12 22:31 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-12 22:32 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 22:05 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 23:14 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-13 07:23 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-13 12:12 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 11:26 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-10-13 12:10 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-13 06:55 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-13 13:33 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 13:41 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-13 14:38 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-13 18:04 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 11:16 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-13 07:40 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 16:46 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-13 09:10 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 07:05 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 14:37 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 16:12 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 16:32 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 19:05 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 19:15 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 16:43 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 16:45 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 23:46 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 00:56 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 17:58 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 20:38 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 19:52 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-12 22:56 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 21:57 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 21:21 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 22:46 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-13 09:27 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-13 12:18 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 11:33 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-13 00:25 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 22:20 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 17:02 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 01:53 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-13 03:54 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-13 10:52 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 17:33 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 16:38 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-10 21:09 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 23:14 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-10 23:01 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-11 08:00 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 10:27 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 10:49 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 16:30 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 02:12 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 19:55 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 11:00 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 12:21 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 14:04 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 23:05 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 07:22 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 11:42 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 16:15 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 14:34 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 16:47 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-13 00:15 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-10-12 17:02 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-13 20:04 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 17:17 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 17:37 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 17:34 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 18:46 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 19:52 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 19:42 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 16:29 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 00:53 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 18:14 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 22:35 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 16:14 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 22:36 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-10 13:14 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-10 19:50 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-10 20:13 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 15:54 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-11 03:41 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-11 09:51 +0800
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-11 11:41 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 16:44 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-10 16:56 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-11 21:26 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2026-10-11 22:12 +0000
Page 12 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 Next page →
| From | ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 17:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <flag-20261012180101@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #403039 |
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote or quoted:
>Not to me. A giant red flag would be something akin to
> switch ( foo ) printf( "Hello, bart\n" ) ;
>where the printf() never gets called.
GCC also flags it:
main.c: In function 'main':
main.c:3:30: warning: statement will never be executed [-Wswitch-unreachable]
3 | int main( void ){ switch( 0 )printf( "Hello!\n" ); }
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. I use, " . . . -pedantic . . . -Wall -W -Wextra -Wpedantic . . .".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 20:04 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <M7pzS.141305$wun8.135843@fx13.ams4> |
| In reply to | #403040 |
On 10/13/2026 1:02 AM, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote or quoted:
>> Not to me. A giant red flag would be something akin to
>> switch ( foo ) printf( "Hello, bart\n" ) ;
>> where the printf() never gets called.
>
> GCC also flags it:
>
> main.c: In function 'main':
> main.c:3:30: warning: statement will never be executed [-Wswitch-unreachable]
> 3 | int main( void ){ switch( 0 )printf( "Hello!\n" ); }
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> . I use, " . . . -pedantic . . . -Wall -W -Wextra -Wpedantic . . .".
You're right. And a quick and immediate silence follows if we simply
transpose the printf() and 0, as follows.
signed main( void ){ switch( printf( "Hello!\n" ) ) break ; }
We could call this refactoring maneuver /switch castle/, after the cas-
tle movement in chess.
Now GCC does /not/ complain about a useless break, unlike bart [1].
But isn't that a bug in GCC? Shouldn't a useless break have the same
diagnostic as a bypassed printf()? Like an idiotic journalist, I ask
/inquiring minds want to know/?
Best wishes, and happy /switch castle/ refactoring adventures.
[1] Or was bart complaining that the break was /not/ useless, and com-
pulsory. I'm getting a bit confused trying to follow the argument, but
it's really popcorn worthy, and I guess I'll have to order industrial
amount of it next time this comes up.
--
Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/
I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com
https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:;
Federated at https://fed.brid.gy/bsky/myrkraverk.bsky.social
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 17:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <BC8zS.76490$w7wb.36545@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #403038 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >On 12/10/2026 15:34, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> On 12/10/2026 06:22, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 12/10/2026 00:05, bart wrote: >>> >>>>> So you don't really get it. That's fine. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So now you can drop it, along with all your other complaints about the C >>>> language and tools people use with it? >>> >>> My opinions haven't changed at all. KT doesn't care because he doesn't >>> understand the importance of having properly designed features. >> >> "properly designed" by what criteria? >> >> Making you happy is not a valid criteria. > >Is there any language that you would consider badly designed? I would prefer that you first describe the specific generic criteria that you believe apply to a "properly designed" language, rather than attempting to change the topic, and then explicitly noting which of those generic criteria are violated by early exits from switch statements in the C language which is the nominal topic for this usenet newsgroup. Please do not reference your personal languages, compilers or opinions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 17:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11aj5rt$3bd$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #403038 |
In article <11aivdn$3nvmh$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >On 12/10/2026 15:34, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> On 12/10/2026 06:22, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 12/10/2026 00:05, bart wrote: >>> >>>>> So you don't really get it. That's fine. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So now you can drop it, along with all your other complaints about the C >>>> language and tools people use with it? >>> >>> My opinions haven't changed at all. KT doesn't care because he doesn't >>> understand the importance of having properly designed features. >> >> "properly designed" by what criteria? >> >> Making you happy is not a valid criteria. > >Is there any language that you would consider badly designed? Yes. PHP. >If so, what would you do if it become amazingly popular and you were >obliged to deal with it in your work; would you change your mind, or >would you still think it was poor? Fortunately, I am not obliged to deal with PHP, but if I were, I suspect my opinion of it would go down, not up. Regardless, I think it fair to categorize it as, "amazingly popular." - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 17:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11aj5nt$t7t$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #403029 |
In article <11aidi3$3gbu4$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >On 12/10/2026 06:22, David Brown wrote: >> On 12/10/2026 00:05, bart wrote: > >>> So you don't really get it. That's fine. >>> >> >> So now you can drop it, along with all your other complaints about the C >> language and tools people use with it? > >My opinions haven't changed at all. KT doesn't care because he doesn't >understand the importance of having properly designed features. Probably >he hasn't been involved in having to process somebody else's source code >or having to translate it or port it. I think you're free to criticize the language, if you like. But you are not free to assign to others opinions that they may not hold; at least if you intend to be taken seriously. I kinda sorta agree that requiring `break` between `case` statements in C was an historical mistake, but here we are: it is 2026, and the language has done that for more than 50 years now. The ship for changing it has sailed. What is one left to do, besides acknowledging it as a wart on the face of the langauge? Everyone here knows that C is imperfect; everyone knows that if one were starting from scratch now, given the hindsight of 50+ years, one would do things differently. So what? We're not starting from scratch, the language we have is the language that we have, and there are real-world complexities that make it difficult (at best!) to change. Simply put, no one is suggesting that C is perfect, but people are saying that one can live with it. I don't read Keith trying to defend C here so much as simply explain what it does, and how one works around the complaints about it that you identify. >I have an old tool which /visualises/ C source code by trying to express >it in my syntax. It is not a formal transpiler: the semantics are not >translated, just the shape of the code. > >Still, the transformation is usually startlingly clear compared with the >original. Anyway I applied it to two examples, first: > >[snip] So what? What do you think that that shows? That your language doesn't have `break`? Ok, but you already knew that, right? We have it on your authority that it is true, so we know that, too. But why does it matter? I find such arguments strange, as they're not really arguing anything meaningful. It's like Anton Ertl's complaint about Rust vis binary search trees in `comp.arch`: because he did not write his tree implementation using completely safe Rust _the same way he did in C_, then somehow Rust is deficient; but Rust is a different programming language, with different semantics and different constraints about how objects may be referred to, etc. That the structure of a program in two different programming languages with different semantics is different seems axiomatic, and frankly doesn't say much about the language. So it is here, as well. You can fairly say, "I don't like this" about something in C; that's fine. Others may even agree with you. But C is what it is, and unless you're willing to engage with the committee and larger language community to change it (which is going to be very, very hard; buckle up) then that is all that it will be. - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 18:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5W9zS.161421$98z8.84067@fx33.iad> |
| In reply to | #403043 |
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes: >In article <11aidi3$3gbu4$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>On 12/10/2026 06:22, David Brown wrote: >>> On 12/10/2026 00:05, bart wrote: >> >I kinda sorta agree that requiring `break` between `case` >statements in C was an historical mistake, but here we are: it >is 2026, and the language has done that for more than 50 years >now. The ship for changing it has sailed. What is one left to >do, besides acknowledging it as a wart on the face of the >langauge? I, on the other hand, don't consider it a mistake, in the context of the C and C++ languages. I've used the ability to fall through in a significant fraction (50% in some applications) of the switch statements that I've written over the last five decades of C and C++programming. Absent other changes to the syntax (e.g. non-contiguous ranges in the case selector[*]) the requirement to use break to avoid falling through to other cases is rather valuable to me. [*] I also use the gcc extension supporting contiguous ranges heavily.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 19:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11ajaa1$3ssqg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403048 |
On 12/10/2026 19:46, Scott Lurndal wrote: > cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes: >> In article <11aidi3$3gbu4$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>> On 12/10/2026 06:22, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 12/10/2026 00:05, bart wrote: >>> > >> I kinda sorta agree that requiring `break` between `case` >> statements in C was an historical mistake, but here we are: it >> is 2026, and the language has done that for more than 50 years >> now. The ship for changing it has sailed. What is one left to >> do, besides acknowledging it as a wart on the face of the >> langauge? > > I, on the other hand, don't consider it a mistake, in the > context of the C and C++ languages. I've used the ability to > fall through in a significant fraction (50% in some applications) of > the switch statements that I've written over the last > five decades of C and C++programming. So 99% of programmers have to suffer needing to pointlessly write 'break' everywhere, rather than the 1% having to write 'fallthru'. Although it sounds like even you need fall-through less often than break.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 19:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <KKazS.183759$ygUb.92831@fx23.iad> |
| In reply to | #403049 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >On 12/10/2026 19:46, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes: >>> In article <11aidi3$3gbu4$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>>> On 12/10/2026 06:22, David Brown wrote: >>>>> On 12/10/2026 00:05, bart wrote: >>>> >> >>> I kinda sorta agree that requiring `break` between `case` >>> statements in C was an historical mistake, but here we are: it >>> is 2026, and the language has done that for more than 50 years >>> now. The ship for changing it has sailed. What is one left to >>> do, besides acknowledging it as a wart on the face of the >>> langauge? >> >> I, on the other hand, don't consider it a mistake, in the >> context of the C and C++ languages. I've used the ability to >> fall through in a significant fraction (50% in some applications) of >> the switch statements that I've written over the last >> five decades of C and C++programming. > >So 99% of programmers have to suffer Please, speak for yourself. You have no clue what programmers[*] think, or whether they suffer from the requirement to use 'break' to avoid falling through to the next case. [*] You, being atypical, are particularly ill-suited to speak for others.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 16:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11ajqhc$28f2$2@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #403049 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> So 99% of programmers have to suffer needing to pointlessly write
> 'break' everywhere, rather than the 1% having to write 'fallthru'.
We're not suffering.
Speaking for myself, I had to learn *once*, several decades ago,
that each case needs to end with "break;" (unless I want fallthrough
behavior). As I've mentioned here before, I pretend that the "break;"
is part of the syntax of a switch statement, while being aware that
it really isn't.
It's easy, and it doesn't hurt a bit. I'll bet it would be easy
for you if (a) you regularly wrote C code (I don't know how often
you do) and (b) you didn't go out of your way to suffer on other
people's behalf.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 00:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11ajrt0$382u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403070 |
On 13/10/2026 00:29, Keith Thompson wrote:
> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> [...]
>> So 99% of programmers have to suffer needing to pointlessly write
>> 'break' everywhere, rather than the 1% having to write 'fallthru'.
>
> We're not suffering.
>
I was replying to SL who doesn't think auto-fall-through is a mistake
because he uses it a lot. Even though he says this:
"I've used the ability to fall through in a significant fraction (50% in
some applications) of the switch statements"
So 50% /sometimes/, and not even individual case-blocks, but of those
switch statements which use at least one fall-through, if I read that right.
So even for him, the majority of case-labels do not fall through.
That makes it rather strange to favour the minority case when it would
be more convenient and less typing for everybody, including SL, if it
was the other way around!
> Speaking for myself, I had to learn *once*, several decades ago,
> that each case needs to end with "break;" (unless I want fallthrough
> behavior). As I've mentioned here before, I pretend that the "break;"
> is part of the syntax of a switch statement, while being aware that
> it really isn't.
>
> It's easy, and it doesn't hurt a bit. I'll bet it would be easy
> for you if (a) you regularly wrote C code (I don't know how often
> you do) and (b) you didn't go out of your way to suffer on other
> people's behalf.
>
This is what I suggested in my first reply in the thread:
break; case a: case b:
break; case c:
break; default:;
That is, use 'break; case' for the first case label of a block.
And also:
"Alternately, create a macro like 'endcase' that expands to 'break', for
a more structured appearance."
These are practical workarounds. That 'break; case' was part of a
solution I used for a 20Kloc C application.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 18:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11ak0lr$28f2$7@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #403074 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 13/10/2026 00:29, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>> So 99% of programmers have to suffer needing to pointlessly write
>>> 'break' everywhere, rather than the 1% having to write 'fallthru'.
>> We're not suffering.
>
> I was replying to SL who doesn't think auto-fall-through is a mistake
> because he uses it a lot.
[...]
And I was replying to your deeply silly claim that 99% of C programmers
"suffer" because we need to use "break" in switch statements.
[...]
> That makes it rather strange to favour the minority case when it would
> be more convenient and less typing for everybody, including SL, if it
> was the other way around!
Sure, it's strange. A small minority of C programmers might prefer
to have fallthrough as the default. The majority, I suspect, *would
have* preferred not to have fallthrough as the default.
Nobody other than you, as far as I can tell, thinks that the strange
choice made several decades ago has led to mass suffering.
[...]
> This is what I suggested in my first reply in the thread:
>
> break; case a: case b:
> break; case c:
> break; default:;
>
> That is, use 'break; case' for the first case label of a block.
Yes, I suppose that would work, but frankly it looks weird. If
you want to use that pattern in your own code, nobody is going to
stop you. It reminds me of "Yoda conditions" (if (42 == x)), an
ugly coding practice that might make it slightly easier to avoid
a certain kind of error.
> And also:
>
> "Alternately, create a macro like 'endcase' that expands to 'break',
> for a more structured appearance."
All C programmers know that "break;" is how you terminate a case
if you don't want fallthrough. A macro that expands to "break"
doesn't help anything. I have to look up the definition to be sure
it's not doing something weird, and it doesn't address any of the
problems you've been complaining about. And of course you still
have to remember that "break" in a switch in a loop doesn't break
out of the loop. It appears to be an attempt to make C look like
some other language, something I've never found to be a good idea.
But again, if you want to use your "endcase" macro, nobody will
stop you.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 22:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11ajnc4$f7l$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #403048 |
In article <5W9zS.161421$98z8.84067@fx33.iad>, Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote: >cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes: >>In article <11aidi3$3gbu4$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>>On 12/10/2026 06:22, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 12/10/2026 00:05, bart wrote: >>> > >>I kinda sorta agree that requiring `break` between `case` >>statements in C was an historical mistake, but here we are: it >>is 2026, and the language has done that for more than 50 years >>now. The ship for changing it has sailed. What is one left to >>do, besides acknowledging it as a wart on the face of the >>langauge? > >I, on the other hand, don't consider it a mistake, in the >context of the C and C++ languages. I've used the ability to >fall through in a significant fraction (50% in some applications) of >the switch statements that I've written over the last >five decades of C and C++programming. Yeah, that's why I'm waffling by only "kinda sorta" agreeing, while means I'm also "kinda sorta" disagreeing. :-D Personally, I think that the BCPL `valof`/`resultis` thing is pretty cool and would have liked to see something like that in C, which in many ways would have subsumed this and other issues. But I honestly doubt they could have fit that into a C compiler meant to run on a PDP-11/20. >Absent other changes to the syntax (e.g. non-contiguous ranges >in the case selector[*]) the requirement to use break to avoid >falling through to other cases is rather valuable to me. I, too, would have liked to have seen ranges and mulitiple case values, at least. Rust has this, and it is genuinely useful. You can even do something analogous to duff's device in Rust, but it's hideous: https://huonw.github.io/blog/2025/03/rust-fallthrough/ Man, that sure looks like it got whacked by an ugly-stick, don't it? - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 16:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11ajpkj$28f2$1@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #403029 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 12/10/2026 06:22, David Brown wrote:
>> On 12/10/2026 00:05, bart wrote:
>>> So you don't really get it. That's fine.
>>>
>> So now you can drop it, along with all your other complaints about
>> the C language and tools people use with it?
>
> My opinions haven't changed at all. KT doesn't care because he doesn't
> understand the importance of having properly designed
> features. Probably he hasn't been involved in having to process
> somebody else's source code or having to translate it or port it.
I've speculated here about your motivations, so I suppose it's fair
that you speculate about mine.
You're completely wrong.
If someone doesn't agree with you, it's not necessarily because they
don't understand something fundamental. It could be because they're
right and you're wrong. You don't seem to consider that possibility.
[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 22:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11agvhl$31ftr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402930 |
On 11/10/2026 02:12, bart wrote:
> Having proper structure must make code analysis simpler than effectively
> having a bunch of case labels randomly scattered through the code.
>
> Example:
>
> newswitch (expr)
> case 3, 4, 5:
> stmt1;
> case 6...10, 12:
> stmt2;
> else
> stmt3;
>
> I think this is OK except for the possibility of that 'else' being
> attached to stmt2 when that ends with 'if (cond) stmt;'.
It might have more problems than that, due to not having 'closure'. That
is, delimiting that might be done by 'end' or via indents in some
languages, or by '}' here.
I would prefer not to have enclose the whole body in braces. But as it
is, then here:
newswitch()
case // 1
newswitch()
case
case // 3
case // 4
it's not clear, when there is no 'else' part, whether case(4) continues
that second switch and from case(3) or the first and case(1), and there
is no way to disambiguate.
OK, not a big problem, it's not hard to fix. Fortunately I'm not going
to implement it.
(BTW I had a look at an old versions of my language, and it seems it
didn't acquire 'switch' until quite late.
Instead there was another, more flexible statement:
* This worked for scalar types ints, floats and pointers
* Test values could be runtime expressions
* Comparisons were done sequentially
* The whole thing could return a value and be used in expressions, or
be the last statement of a value-returning function.
I believe 'switch' was introduced as an explicit streamlined version with:
* Only 'int' expressions
* Test values had to be compile-time constants
* Comparisons were expected to be done in parallel, and via
a jump-table.
Having two forms was considered simpler than the compiler trying to
analyse the one kind of statement, and silently /not/ using a jumptable
due to some oversight.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-10 13:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11addmq$3k6om$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #402868 |
In article <11ac783$1bkuo$1@kst.eternal-september.org>, Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote: ... >The ANSI C Rationale says "No serious consideration was given to >making the switch more structured, as in Pascal, out of fear of >invalidating working code". > >I suppose some version of C could have defined a new switch-like >statement without the fallthrough behavior. I can see some small >advantages in doing so, but the existing switch with fallthrough >would have to be kept in the language -- and such a new switch-like >statement would have added no real expressive power. We'd now have >a mix of code using the old and new constructs, pressure to convert >existing working code, and probably errors introduced by converting >code incorrectly. You are probably right that C itself will never have such a construct added (*). But the point is that there are many C-derived languages - languages that use C's basic syntax (especially, using curly braces). C++/C#/Swift - probably others. These languages are free to have (and probably do) have better switch/case/whatever-you-want-to-call-it constructs. (*) Although I certainly think it would benefit from doing so. -- To be evangelical is to spend every waking moment hovering around two emotional states: fear and rage. Evangelicals are seriously the angriest and most vicious bunch of self-pitying, constantly-moaning whinybutts I've ever encountered.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-10 19:50 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20261010195051.00000594@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #402868 |
On Fri, 09 Oct 2026 19:17:35 -0700 Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote: > >BCPL's predecessor, CPL, I fully agree with your post (plus have to add that "more structured switch" apart from new keyword(s) will need some new way to express common handler for several cases. Ada/VHDL solution of using | would not work in C for obvious reasons). But for sentence above I have a nitpick. CPL is an ancestor of BCPL, but not a predecessor. Historically BCPL was implemented before CPL. I am not even sure that CPL was ever implemented entirely.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-10 20:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11adv82$cjlv$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402883 |
On 2026-10-10 18:50, Michael S wrote: > > I fully agree with your post (plus have to add that "more structured > switch" apart from new keyword(s) will need some new way to express > common handler for several cases. Ada/VHDL solution of using | would > not work in C for obvious reasons). Pascal allows '..' and ',' (for ranges and lists), and even mixed. That should (in principle) be a syntactical possibility in "C". Janis > [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-10 15:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11aefo0$24k8m$2@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #402888 |
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
> On 2026-10-10 18:50, Michael S wrote:
>> I fully agree with your post (plus have to add that "more structured
>> switch" apart from new keyword(s) will need some new way to express
>> common handler for several cases. Ada/VHDL solution of using | would
>> not work in C for obvious reasons).
>
> Pascal allows '..' and ',' (for ranges and lists), and even mixed.
> That should (in principle) be a syntactical possibility in "C".
C2Y will add case ranges using "..." (which is already a token used for
variadic functions), with syntax and semantics close to the existing gcc
extension.
switch (foo) {
case 'a' ... 'z':
// ...
}
This was considered and rejected (with "..") for C89. One reason for
rejecting it was that 'A'..'Z' is not contiguous in all character
sets (particularly not in EBCDIC). The C89 Rationale also mentions
the problem of large code or jump table space for something like
0..65535, something that can be handled these days by minimally
clever compilers.
One problem is that `case 0...1:` is a syntax error. 0...1 is a valid
preprocessing number that can't be converted to a valid constant.
The solution is to surround the ... with spaces, which is probably
a good idea anyway.
As for ',', that would avoid having to repeat the "case" keyword,
but it could be visually confusing. `case 0, 1:` is currently a
syntax error, but only because a constant expression can't include
a comma operator (with some obscure exceptions). Allowing commas
would prevent a future version of the language from either allowing
comma operators in constant expressions or permitting non-constant
expressions in case labels. I still wouldn't mind such a change,
but it would add no real expressive power and I don't think anyone
has proposed it.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 03:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11aepgb$286ml$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402920 |
On 2026-10-11 00:54, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>> On 2026-10-10 18:50, Michael S wrote:
>>> I fully agree with your post (plus have to add that "more structured
>>> switch" apart from new keyword(s) will need some new way to express
>>> common handler for several cases. Ada/VHDL solution of using | would
>>> not work in C for obvious reasons).
>>
>> Pascal allows '..' and ',' (for ranges and lists), and even mixed.
>> That should (in principle) be a syntactical possibility in "C".
>
> C2Y will add case ranges using "..." (which is already a token used for
> variadic functions), with syntax and semantics close to the existing gcc
> extension.
>
> switch (foo) {
> case 'a' ... 'z':
> // ...
> }
>
> This was considered and rejected (with "..") for C89. One reason for
> rejecting it was that 'A'..'Z' is not contiguous in all character
> sets (particularly not in EBCDIC). The C89 Rationale also mentions
> the problem of large code or jump table space for something like
> 0..65535, something that can be handled these days by minimally
> clever compilers.
>
> One problem is that `case 0...1:` is a syntax error. 0...1 is a valid
> preprocessing number that can't be converted to a valid constant.
> The solution is to surround the ... with spaces, which is probably
> a good idea anyway.
>
> As for ',', that would avoid having to repeat the "case" keyword,
> but it could be visually confusing. `case 0, 1:` is currently a
> syntax error, but only because a constant expression can't include
> a comma operator (with some obscure exceptions). Allowing commas
> would prevent a future version of the language from either allowing
> comma operators in constant expressions or permitting non-constant
> expressions in case labels. I still wouldn't mind such a change,
> but it would add no real expressive power and I don't think anyone
> has proposed it.
Thanks for the interesting background information.
Your explanation shows how difficult it is to add features (even if
they are comparably simple appearing ones) to an existing language;
many things have to be considered, interdependencies, and also an
educated thought about future consequences.
It's certainly a lot easier if you can design a language from scratch.
Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 09:51 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <zYByS.21374$VDn8.5260@fx14.ams4> |
| In reply to | #402932 |
On 10/11/2026 9:41 AM, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 2026-10-11 00:54, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>>> On 2026-10-10 18:50, Michael S wrote:
>>>> I fully agree with your post (plus have to add that "more structured
>>>> switch" apart from new keyword(s) will need some new way to express
>>>> common handler for several cases. Ada/VHDL solution of using | would
>>>> not work in C for obvious reasons).
>>>
>>> Pascal allows '..' and ',' (for ranges and lists), and even mixed.
>>> That should (in principle) be a syntactical possibility in "C".
>>
>> C2Y will add case ranges using "..." (which is already a token used for
>> variadic functions), with syntax and semantics close to the existing gcc
>> extension.
>>
>> switch (foo) {
>> case 'a' ... 'z':
>> // ...
>> }
>>
>> This was considered and rejected (with "..") for C89. One reason for
>> rejecting it was that 'A'..'Z' is not contiguous in all character
>> sets (particularly not in EBCDIC). The C89 Rationale also mentions
>> the problem of large code or jump table space for something like
>> 0..65535, something that can be handled these days by minimally
>> clever compilers.
>>
>> One problem is that `case 0...1:` is a syntax error. 0...1 is a valid
>> preprocessing number that can't be converted to a valid constant.
>> The solution is to surround the ... with spaces, which is probably
>> a good idea anyway.
>>
>> As for ',', that would avoid having to repeat the "case" keyword,
>> but it could be visually confusing. `case 0, 1:` is currently a
>> syntax error, but only because a constant expression can't include
>> a comma operator (with some obscure exceptions). Allowing commas
>> would prevent a future version of the language from either allowing
>> comma operators in constant expressions or permitting non-constant
>> expressions in case labels. I still wouldn't mind such a change,
>> but it would add no real expressive power and I don't think anyone
>> has proposed it.
>
> Thanks for the interesting background information.
>
> Your explanation shows how difficult it is to add features (even if
> they are comparably simple appearing ones) to an existing language;
> many things have to be considered, interdependencies, and also an
> educated thought about future consequences.
>
> It's certainly a lot easier if you can design a language from scratch.
>
> Janis
Dear Javis,
Even then, people screw up, such as Java's lack of labelled /break/s in-
side switch () statements. I guess they were afraid of /goto/s, and
chose to use /break/ instead, with this annoying side effect.
[Ok, I'll probably want to review that before I post more about it, but
I have faith in my recollection.]
C++ has removed some features from C++98, and again from C++11 if I re-
call correctly, so it's not like people don't screw up from time to
time.
I've not used C# extensively enough to encounter problem spots, so
people here in comp.lang.c are welcome to chime in.
My personal guess is that it would be better for everyone, if program-
ming languages didn't escape the laboratory until at least one more non-
trivial project other than the compiler is near completion or finished.
What do you think?
--
Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/
I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com
https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:;
Federated at https://fed.brid.gy/bsky/myrkraverk.bsky.social
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web