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 227 — 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 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 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 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 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 9 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 Next page →
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 07:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11ahpqi$38ir0$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402992 |
On 11/10/2026 19:57, bart wrote: > On 11/10/2026 18:17, David Brown wrote: >> Only Michael can, if he wants, explain what he was thinking. > > It sounds like he's pressurised into doing so. Maybe so that he can be > lectured on how to it 'properly'. The "pressure" is just because people are curious for more detail. Michael is an experienced C programmer, but we all work in slightly different ways on slightly different kinds of code bases. I can't think why breaking out of loops within switch cases would be "very common", but I have no reason to suspect Michael was not writing code "properly". I can't think why such code - common or not - would be problematic, or why having two different "break" keywords or constructs would be better for his code. That's why I would like Michael to give more details - not to tell him his "wrong", but to learn more about his coding. > > 'break' to quit a loop early is part of the language, so why shouldn't > someone make use it? I think most C programmers do, at least occasionally. > > It just its use can be interfered with when 'switch' is involved. > I personally have never found an issue there. "break" breaks out of the innermost loop or switch. If you write switch statements that are intermingled with loops in a non-structured manner, I am sure things get difficult and unclear. Since I do not write code with such intermingling, I have not had any such problems. Other people may choose to intermingle switches and loops, and may then have issues as a result, but I have not seen this in real code. > That that happens and needs a workaround, is not satisfactory. The issue > exists 100% because of sharing the 'break' keyword for two different > purposes. > First, there is no indication that conflicts between switch and loop "break" occurs in real code, or what the nature of such issues are. (Michael's brief comments are not enough information.) Secondly, there is no indication that this "needs a workaround" - especially as there is no definition of what might be called a "workaround". Usually you use the term to mean C code that you want to complain about. Thirdly, the keyword "break" is not being used for two different purposes - it is being used for the same purpose in two different control structures. It is well established that there are occasions where you have nested control structures, where it would be useful to be able to break out of an outer structure. In C, "break" by itself does not handle such cases, and thus additional code is needed (what you call a "workaround", and other people call "writing code") - something people have managed to do for decades. It is well established that at least some programmers would find it convenient to have some kind of multi-level or labelled "break" to let such cases be handled in a neater way, and there are proposals to add such a feature to C. This is a general situation with nested control structures, and not in any way specific to switches or mixes of switches and loops - almost certainly, nested loops are the primary use-case.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 14:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11ainqf$3kkvd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403025 |
On 12/10/2026 06:05, David Brown wrote:
> On 11/10/2026 19:57, bart wrote:
>> On 11/10/2026 18:17, David Brown wrote:
>
>>> Only Michael can, if he wants, explain what he was thinking.
>>
>> It sounds like he's pressurised into doing so. Maybe so that he can be
>> lectured on how to it 'properly'.
>
> The "pressure" is just because people are curious for more detail.
> Michael is an experienced C programmer, but we all work in slightly
> different ways on slightly different kinds of code bases. I can't think
> why breaking out of loops within switch cases would be "very common",
> but I have no reason to suspect Michael was not writing code "properly".
> I can't think why such code - common or not - would be problematic, or
> why having two different "break" keywords or constructs would be better
> for his code. That's why I would like Michael to give more details -
> not to tell him his "wrong", but to learn more about his coding.
>
>>
>> 'break' to quit a loop early is part of the language, so why shouldn't
>> someone make use it?
>
> I think most C programmers do, at least occasionally.
>
>>
>> It just its use can be interfered with when 'switch' is involved.
>>
>
> I personally have never found an issue there. "break" breaks out of the
> innermost loop or switch. If you write switch statements that are
> intermingled with loops in a non-structured manner, I am sure things get
> difficult and unclear. Since I do not write code with such
> intermingling, I have not had any such problems.
What do mean by 'intermingled' - nested? That's how structured
programming works!
Otherwise there is no intermingling in this example:
for (i=0; i < N; ++i) {
x = A[i];
if (x == 5 || x == 6 || x == 10 || x == 11) break;
switch (A[i]) {
case 5: case 6: case 10: case 11: break; // ??
}
}
The loop body shows two ways of aborting the loop when an exit condition
is detected:
* Using an if-statement and 'break'
* Using a switch-statement and ... break?
The second doesn't work because 'break' now shadows its outer meaning.
Both would otherwise be reasonable choices for this logic.
Here's another example:
for (i=0; i < N; ++i) {
if (A[i] == 1)
if (!f()) break;
else if (A[i] == 2)
if (!g()) break;
else
if (!h()) break;
}
Here, someone might notice that 'switch' suits this pattern better than
an if-else chain. So they try this:
for (i=0; i < N; ++i) {
switch (A[i]) {
case 1:
if (!f()) break;
case 2:
if (!g()) break;
default:
if (!h()) break;
}
}
This is valid C still, but it doesn't have the same behaviour.
Maybe, some compilers with certain options may point out something about
fall-through, so you're aware something's amiss, but it doesn't get
around the problem: you can't simply swap if-else chains with switch
even when the latter is a better fit.
This is a definite flaw in the language.
>> That that happens and needs a workaround, is not satisfactory. The
>> issue exists 100% because of sharing the 'break' keyword for two
>> different purposes.
>>
> First, there is no indication that conflicts between switch and loop
> "break" occurs in real code, or what the nature of such issues are.
As I said, they CAN'T occur in finished code, since some other approach
has had to be used. You won't know if the conflicts have occurred!
> (Michael's brief comments are not enough information.) Secondly, there
> is no indication that this "needs a workaround" - especially as there is
> no definition of what might be called a "workaround". Usually you use
> the term to mean C code that you want to complain about. Thirdly, the
> keyword "break" is not being used for two different purposes - it is
> being used for the same purpose in two different control structures.
One is for loops to stop iteration, it is optional, and tends to be used
sparingly.
The other is for switch, it is nearly always necessary for the common
pattern of switch, and is needed because otherwise the language leaves
you stranded in the middle of a switch statement. There is no iteration
involved.
Does that sound about the same?
> It is well established that there are occasions where you have nested
> control structures, where it would be useful to be able to break out of
> an outer structure. In C, "break" by itself does not handle such cases,
> and thus additional code is needed (what you call a "workaround", and
> other people call "writing code")
People keep bringing this up. Yes, that's an annoyance too, but it is
genuinely rare.
BTW I looked at the sources for one of my projects (in my language) to
see whether breaking a loop from switch ever occurred. I found it the
very first instance! Then I kept finding more.
This is the outline of the first example:
while pmtype := nextcmdparam(paramno, name, value, "m") do
case pmtype
when pm_option then
when pm_sourcefile then
if passlevel in [run_pass, runpcl_pass] then
exit
'case' is a sister statement to 'switch' and has the same syntax. It's
used for more general cases usually with a small number of branches.
My 'break' statement is called 'exit'. Number two:
do
lex() !first symbol on line
case lx.symbol
when eofsym then
when kendsym then
exit
There are loads more. This next is an example of breaking out of two
loop levels:
while wt do
while w do
if ... then
exit all
It is nearly always all the loops, so I simply write 'all' (an alias for
0 which denotes the outermost loop without needing to count). There are
two such 'exit all' in this 35Kloc project; all other exits are for one
level only.
Here's one more loop/switch example, but with a twist:
docase flags^
when 'S' then
when 'U' then
else
exit
end
'docase' and 'doswitch' are looping forms, which are very common in my
programs. This one is the equivalent of this in C:
while (1) {
switch (*flags) {
case 'S': ...
case 'U': ...
default:
.... // NOW WHAT?
}
}
You can't express it. Sure you can get around it, but that is just
pandering to the issue, and it means you can't use what might be the
most natural and clearest way to do it.
In my language and in my programs, breaking out of a loop from within a
multi-way case/switch selection is a very, very common idiom which is
denied to C users.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 16:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11aipsc$3kr94$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403032 |
On 12/10/2026 15:37, bart wrote:
> On 12/10/2026 06:05, David Brown wrote:
>> On 11/10/2026 19:57, bart wrote:
>>> On 11/10/2026 18:17, David Brown wrote:
>>
>>>> Only Michael can, if he wants, explain what he was thinking.
>>>
>>> It sounds like he's pressurised into doing so. Maybe so that he can
>>> be lectured on how to it 'properly'.
>>
>> The "pressure" is just because people are curious for more detail.
>> Michael is an experienced C programmer, but we all work in slightly
>> different ways on slightly different kinds of code bases. I can't
>> think why breaking out of loops within switch cases would be "very
>> common", but I have no reason to suspect Michael was not writing code
>> "properly". I can't think why such code - common or not - would be
>> problematic, or why having two different "break" keywords or
>> constructs would be better for his code. That's why I would like
>> Michael to give more details - not to tell him his "wrong", but to
>> learn more about his coding.
>>
>>>
>>> 'break' to quit a loop early is part of the language, so why
>>> shouldn't someone make use it?
>>
>> I think most C programmers do, at least occasionally.
>>
>>>
>>> It just its use can be interfered with when 'switch' is involved.
>>>
>>
>> I personally have never found an issue there. "break" breaks out of
>> the innermost loop or switch. If you write switch statements that are
>> intermingled with loops in a non-structured manner, I am sure things
>> get difficult and unclear. Since I do not write code with such
>> intermingling, I have not had any such problems.
>
> What do mean by 'intermingled' - nested? That's how structured
> programming works!
>
No - if I had meant "nested", I would have written "nested". In C,
switch statements are not fully structured. That's why I wrote
"intermingled". I had assumed the meaning was clear, but there is no
standard definition of "intermingled" code.
You can write things like :
int foo(int x) {
int y = x;
switch (x) {
case 0 :
y++;
break;
case 1 :
for (y = 0; y < x; y++) {
case 2:
x++;
}
}
return y;
}
That is obviously a silly, invented example. But it is possible to jump
into loops with an outer switch. Such things may be of use to some
people - just as "goto" jumping around might be of use. It is of no
interest to me, and I don't write code that intermingles switches and
loops (or conditionals). I limit my switch statements to having clear
structure - using braces to create blocks within cases if I have local
variables.
In the hypothetical example above, if there was a "break" after "x++;",
it could easily be unclear to the reader if it applied to the loop, or
to the switch. Having separate "break_switch" and "break_for" keywords
or constructs would make that difference clear - but I cannot think of a
real example where it would not be clearer to have the entire loop
within one case and avoid the issue altogether.
> Otherwise there is no intermingling in this example:
>
> for (i=0; i < N; ++i) {
> x = A[i];
> if (x == 5 || x == 6 || x == 10 || x == 11) break;
>
> switch (A[i]) {
> case 5: case 6: case 10: case 11: break; // ??
> }
> }
That is not "intermingling", as I used the word - it is just a switch
nested inside a loop.
>
> The loop body shows two ways of aborting the loop when an exit condition
> is detected:
>
> * Using an if-statement and 'break'
>
> * Using a switch-statement and ... break?
>
> The second doesn't work because 'break' now shadows its outer meaning.
> Both would otherwise be reasonable choices for this logic.
No, they would not be reasonable choices. It is very, /very/ simple, as
long as your code is written in a structured manner - nesting the
constructs as you did above. "break" applies to the innermost loop or
switch. That's the rule.
>
> Here's another example:
>
> for (i=0; i < N; ++i) {
> if (A[i] == 1)
> if (!f()) break;
> else if (A[i] == 2)
> if (!g()) break;
> else
> if (!h()) break;
> }
>
> Here, someone might notice that 'switch' suits this pattern better than
> an if-else chain. So they try this:
>
> for (i=0; i < N; ++i) {
> switch (A[i]) {
> case 1:
> if (!f()) break;
> case 2:
> if (!g()) break;
> default:
> if (!h()) break;
> }
> }
>
> This is valid C still, but it doesn't have the same behaviour.
Surprise! Someone changed the code, and the behaviour changed! Who
could have imagined that might happen?
> In my language and in my programs,
No one else cares. Your language is your own, and not relevant outside
of your bubble. You keep thinking it somehow "proves" your points, or
that it shows how "wrong" C is - it does not. There is no need to waste
your time or other readers' time by writing about it. Stick to writing
about C here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 16:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11aiui8$3nisn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403033 |
On 12/10/2026 15:12, David Brown wrote:
> On 12/10/2026 15:37, bart wrote:
> That is obviously a silly, invented example.
Yes, but I am not discussing that in this post. The subthread is
switch-break interfering with loop-break.
>>
>> The loop body shows two ways of aborting the loop when an exit
>> condition is detected:
>>
>> * Using an if-statement and 'break'
>>
>> * Using a switch-statement and ... break?
>>
>> The second doesn't work because 'break' now shadows its outer meaning.
>> Both would otherwise be reasonable choices for this logic.
>
> No, they would not be reasonable choices.
Why not? You seem to be talking about both IF and SWITCH here; are there
any other conditional control-flow statements that I'm not aware of?
Or is your more reasonable approach involving superfluous loops or
superfluous functions (just to score some point)?
We're trying to avoid convoluted code.
> It is very, /very/ simple, as
> long as your code is written in a structured manner - nesting the
> constructs as you did above. "break" applies to the innermost loop or
> switch. That's the rule.
Yes, we know that's rule! And that is the problem: the break of switch
interferes with normal loop break, which means that forces your hand
whenever you'd prefer to use the more apt 'switch' construct.
>> This is valid C still, but it doesn't have the same behaviour.
>
> Surprise! Someone changed the code, and the behaviour changed! Who
> could have imagined that might happen?
Now you're being facetious. THE BEHAVIOUR SHOULD BE EXACTLY THE SAME:
Loop
....
Break when some condition is true
....
You should be able to choose how you write your conditions. So the fact
that the behaviour changes while expressing the same logic IS THE PROBLEM.
I mean, why on earth should it? Just because some numskull decided to
use the same fucking keyword for two different things?
Now, everyone is trying to suggest it was in fact a wonderful idea, you
save one whole keyword, and that it's SO easy to try and avoid the
ensuing mess by programming your way around it or avoiding certain
statement combos.
>> In my language and in my programs,
>
> No one else cares. Your language is your own, and not relevant outside
> of your bubble. You keep thinking it somehow "proves" your points, or
> that it shows how "wrong" C is - it does not.
Then you've just got your head in the sand, sorry.
People have been asking about examples of exiting a loop from within
switch, and in my code there are myriad such examples, even more than
I'd thought (I guess I don't even think about it).
That they're in a different language doesn't matter: it shows the idiom,
that code-pattern, can be useful and can be the more natural and
intuitive choice.
Of course you won't find such examples in C because the language doesn't
allow it!
Oh, and I also showed an easy solution to the nested loops issue.
> There is no need to waste
> your time or other readers' time by writing about it. Stick to writing
> about C here.
The subject is Taming the Switch-Statement, and the opening post was
ways to forget writing that famous 'break'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 19:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11aj41i$3oq6i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403036 |
On 12/10/2026 17:32, bart wrote: > On 12/10/2026 15:12, David Brown wrote: >> On 12/10/2026 15:37, bart wrote: > >> That is obviously a silly, invented example. > > Yes, but I am not discussing that in this post. The subthread is switch- > break interfering with loop-break. > "Switch break" does not in any sense interfere with "loop break". There is no interference, no conflict, no confusion. "break" leaves the current innermost switch or loop. It is simple and obvious. And while I agree that occasionally you might want a want to break out of an outer switch or loop from within an inner one, it applies equally to two nested loops, two nested switches, a switch containing a nested loop, and a loop containing a nested switch. > >>> >>> The loop body shows two ways of aborting the loop when an exit >>> condition is detected: >>> >>> * Using an if-statement and 'break' >>> >>> * Using a switch-statement and ... break? >>> >>> The second doesn't work because 'break' now shadows its outer >>> meaning. Both would otherwise be reasonable choices for this logic. >> >> No, they would not be reasonable choices. > > Why not? You seem to be talking about both IF and SWITCH here; are there > any other conditional control-flow statements that I'm not aware of? I am sure you have read the C standards, so that you know the answer to that. > > Or is your more reasonable approach involving superfluous loops or > superfluous functions (just to score some point)? > > We're trying to avoid convoluted code. > No, I don't think "we" are trying to do anything. /You/ are trying to invent problems, and to persuade others that the confusions in your own mind are real issues for C programmers. I am explaining that there is no special challenge here. >> It is very, /very/ simple, as long as your code is written in a >> structured manner - nesting the constructs as you did above. "break" >> applies to the innermost loop or switch. That's the rule. > > Yes, we know that's rule! So we are done, then? One simple rule to learn - and a pretty obvious rule at that. Now you know the answer, you can stop worrying about it. > And that is the problem: the break of switch > interferes with normal loop break, which means that forces your hand > whenever you'd prefer to use the more apt 'switch' construct. There is no interference. There is a /limitation/ - "break" only exits the innermost structure, and cannot break out of outer structures. It's like "return" only returns from the current function, not the function that called it. > >>> This is valid C still, but it doesn't have the same behaviour. >> >> Surprise! Someone changed the code, and the behaviour changed! Who >> could have imagined that might happen? > > Now you're being facetious. THE BEHAVIOUR SHOULD BE EXACTLY THE SAME: > Only in your mind. You changed the code significantly, and the behaviour changes. > Loop > .... > Break when some condition is true > .... > > You should be able to choose how you write your conditions. So the fact > that the behaviour changes while expressing the same logic IS THE PROBLEM. You can often express the same logic in many different ways in code, and the details of how you write the code need to be changed to match. Why should anyone expect that an "if" statement can be changed to a "switch" statement and everything else should remain the same? If I change a "while" loop to a "do" loop, it's still a loop - but the contents must be changed if I want the same behaviour. You are inventing things that don't exist outside your imagination, and then complaining that C was not designed specifically to suit the rules you just made up. > > I mean, why on earth should it? Just because some numskull decided to > use the same fucking keyword for two different things? > > Now, everyone is trying to suggest it was in fact a wonderful idea, you > save one whole keyword, and that it's SO easy to try and avoid the > ensuing mess by programming your way around it or avoiding certain > statement combos. > Again, I can't speak for anyone else. But the very idea that any of this should be difficult or an issue for any normal (not psychotic) C programmer had never occurred to me until it was brought up in this thread. > >>> In my language and in my programs, >> >> No one else cares. Your language is your own, and not relevant >> outside of your bubble. You keep thinking it somehow "proves" your >> points, or that it shows how "wrong" C is - it does not. > > Then you've just got your head in the sand, sorry. > > People have been asking about examples of exiting a loop from within > switch, and in my code there are myriad such examples, even more than > I'd thought (I guess I don't even think about it). > > That they're in a different language doesn't matter: it shows the idiom, > that code-pattern, can be useful and can be the more natural and > intuitive choice. > > Of course you won't find such examples in C because the language doesn't > allow it! > > Oh, and I also showed an easy solution to the nested loops issue. > > >> There is no need to waste your time or other readers' time by >> writing about it. Stick to writing about C here. > The subject is Taming the Switch-Statement, and the opening post was > ways to forget writing that famous 'break'. We all know that some people sometimes forget "break" statements in their switches. Mistakes and typos happen to the best of us, in all programming languages, and every programming language has its own selection of "archetypical" mistakes, and tools to help catch or avoid them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 19:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11aj844$3rt9c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403041 |
On 12/10/2026 18:05, David Brown wrote: > On 12/10/2026 17:32, bart wrote: >>>> The loop body shows two ways of aborting the loop when an exit >>>> condition is detected: >>>> >>>> * Using an if-statement and 'break' >>>> >>>> * Using a switch-statement and ... break? >>>> >>>> The second doesn't work because 'break' now shadows its outer >>>> meaning. Both would otherwise be reasonable choices for this logic. >>> >>> No, they would not be reasonable choices. >> >> Why not? You seem to be talking about both IF and SWITCH here; are >> there any other conditional control-flow statements that I'm not aware >> of? > > I am sure you have read the C standards, so that you know the answer to > that. I still don't know what you mean. So, using 'if' for conditional exit from a loop is unreasonable. But so is 'switch', even putting aside the issue with break. It seems to me that you are just gaslighting now. >> Yes, we know that's rule! > > So we are done, then? One simple rule to learn - and a pretty obvious > rule at that. Now you know the answer, you can stop worrying about it. What? Having a stupid rule in place doesn't mean it hasn't caused issues! >> And that is the problem: the break of switch interferes with normal >> loop break, which means that forces your hand whenever you'd prefer to >> use the more apt 'switch' construct. > > There is no interference. There is a /limitation/ - "break" only exits > the innermost structure, and cannot break out of outer structures. It's > like "return" only returns from the current function, not the function > that called it. It's a good thing that they didn't choose to use 'return' for both loop exit and switch-break then! But if they had: * You couldn't use early return from inside a loop * Nor from inside a switch * You still couldn't exit early from a loop from inside switch * 'return' would do three different things depending on context, but none interfere with each other Obviously this wouldn't be a problem for you either? After all that would be the rule, still a fairly simple one. And it would have saved one more keyword which is really, really important. Yeah, I think now we're done.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 16:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11ajraq$28f2$3@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #403046 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> Yeah, I think now we're done.
Promise?
--
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 | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 16:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11ajrf0$28f2$4@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #403046 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> Yeah, I think now we're done.
You've posted 5 more articles in this thread after the above.
Does "done" mean something else in your language?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 23:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11ajrh8$i6g$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #403072 |
In article <11ajrf0$28f2$4@kst.eternal-september.org>, Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote: >bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >[...] >> Yeah, I think now we're done. > >You've posted 5 more articles in this thread after the above. >Does "done" mean something else in your language? It's how you terminate the scope introduced by a looping construct in bart's language; it doesn't mean that the loop is finished iterating. ;-P - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 00:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11ajs3a$382u$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403072 |
On 13/10/2026 00:45, Keith Thompson wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > [...] >> Yeah, I think now we're done. > > You've posted 5 more articles in this thread after the above. > Does "done" mean something else in your language? > Other people than David Brown post remarks and it is polite to respond. As I did to you a few minutes ago.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 17:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11aj73v$c2u$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #403032 |
In article <11ainqf$3kkvd$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>On 12/10/2026 06:05, David Brown wrote:
>> On 11/10/2026 19:57, bart wrote:
>>> On 11/10/2026 18:17, David Brown wrote:
>>
>>>> Only Michael can, if he wants, explain what he was thinking.
>>>
>>> It sounds like he's pressurised into doing so. Maybe so that he can be
>>> lectured on how to it 'properly'.
>>
>> The "pressure" is just because people are curious for more detail.
>> Michael is an experienced C programmer, but we all work in slightly
>> different ways on slightly different kinds of code bases. I can't think
>> why breaking out of loops within switch cases would be "very common",
>> but I have no reason to suspect Michael was not writing code "properly".
>> I can't think why such code - common or not - would be problematic, or
>> why having two different "break" keywords or constructs would be better
>> for his code. That's why I would like Michael to give more details -
>> not to tell him his "wrong", but to learn more about his coding.
>>
>>>
>>> 'break' to quit a loop early is part of the language, so why shouldn't
>>> someone make use it?
>>
>> I think most C programmers do, at least occasionally.
>>
>>>
>>> It just its use can be interfered with when 'switch' is involved.
>>>
>>
>> I personally have never found an issue there. "break" breaks out of the
>> innermost loop or switch. If you write switch statements that are
>> intermingled with loops in a non-structured manner, I am sure things get
>> difficult and unclear. Since I do not write code with such
>> intermingling, I have not had any such problems.
>
>What do mean by 'intermingled' - nested? That's how structured
>programming works!
Keith explained this already, but I feel obligated to respond to
a point....
>Otherwise there is no intermingling in this example:
>
> for (i=0; i < N; ++i) {
> x = A[i];
> if (x == 5 || x == 6 || x == 10 || x == 11) break;
>
> switch (A[i]) {
> case 5: case 6: case 10: case 11: break; // ??
> }
> }
for (i = 0; i < N; i++) {
x = A[i];
switch (x) {
case 5: case 6: case 10: case 11: goto out;
}
}
out:
>The loop body shows two ways of aborting the loop when an exit condition
>is detected:
>
>* Using an if-statement and 'break'
>
>* Using a switch-statement and ... break?
Goto.
"If you want to go somewhere, goto is the best way to get
there." -- Ken Thompson, via the Plan 9 `fortune` file.
Alternatively, one might extract the loop into its own little
function, and use an early `return` to break out of it:
static inline void
loop(void)
{
for (i = 0; i < N; i++) {
x = a[i];
switch (x) {
case 5: case 6: case 10: case 11: return;
}
// Do whatever here.
}
}
...and back in the caller:
loop();
>The second doesn't work because 'break' now shadows its outer meaning.
>Both would otherwise be reasonable choices for this logic.
>
>Here's another example:
>
> for (i=0; i < N; ++i) {
> if (A[i] == 1)
> if (!f()) break;
> else if (A[i] == 2)
> if (!g()) break;
> else
> if (!h()) break;
> }
>
>Here, someone might notice that 'switch' suits this pattern better than
>an if-else chain. So they try this:
>
> for (i=0; i < N; ++i) {
> switch (A[i]) {
> case 1:
> if (!f()) break;
> case 2:
> if (!g()) break;
> default:
> if (!h()) break;
> }
> }
```
for (i = 0; i < N; i++) {
switch (A[i]) {
case 1: if (!f()) goto out;
case 2: if (!g()) goto out;
default: if (!h()) goto out;
}
}
out:
```
>This is valid C still, but it doesn't have the same behaviour.
Yes. I guess I fail to see the point of these, as what you are
trying to show seems obvious to me, and I strongly suspect it is
obvious to others, as well.
Are you suggesting that people are unaware of how `break`
interacts with `switch` inside of a loop? I don't think that is
true; I think people are well aware, but know how to work around
it and don't see it as a huge impediment; more of a mild
inconvenience.
Or are you suggesting that they are trying to defend the design
of the language in this regard? I similarly don't think that is
true; I have certainly been annoyed by this, and I suspect
others have as well. But again, people know how to work around
it.
C is not anyone's mother; I doubt anyone who is not a kook feels
like they need to rise to the defense of its honor when it is
criticized.
What I think some people are sort of mystified by is this idea
that this one thing is such a deal-breaker as to render the
language unuseable. That is certainly not true; whatever its
deficiencies, C has become fundamental to the working of the
modern world, and one avails oneself of considerable networking
effects if one uses it.
>Maybe, some compilers with certain options may point out something about
>fall-through, so you're aware something's amiss, but it doesn't get
>around the problem: you can't simply swap if-else chains with switch
>even when the latter is a better fit.
>
>This is a definite flaw in the language.
It _can be_ an _annoyance_ in the language, sure. Is it a,
"definite flaw"? That is subjective. You clearly feel that it
is. I couldn't say whether anyone else feels that way; I think
it's too minor to matter for most programmers.
>[snip]
>In my language and in my programs, breaking out of a loop from within a
>multi-way case/switch selection is a very, very common idiom which is
>denied to C users.
And yet, C is used successfully by millions of programmers
around the world, the results of which are used by billions of
users daily.
So is it flawed? By the designer's own account, yes. Is it
workable? Obviously.
- Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 20:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11ajcv8$3u33s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403045 |
On 12/10/2026 18:58, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <11ainqf$3kkvd$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> This is valid C still, but it doesn't have the same behaviour.
>
> Yes. I guess I fail to see the point of these, as what you are
> trying to show seems obvious to me, and I strongly suspect it is
> obvious to others, as well.
>
> Are you suggesting that people are unaware of how `break`
> interacts with `switch` inside of a loop? I don't think that is
> true; I think people are well aware, but know how to work around
> it and don't see it as a huge impediment; more of a mild
> inconvenience.
>
> Or are you suggesting that they are trying to defend the design
> of the language in this regard?
That's what it seems like: obstinately trying to pretend it is not a
flaw, that it makes perfect sense, then you never want to do any of the
stuff where it causes problems anyway etc.
There are several issues discussed regarding switch:
* That its structure is totally chaotic (there /is/ no structure)
* That 'break' is needed to escape from the middle of that statement to
the end
* That that 'break' happens also to clash, needlessly, with loop-break
* And also with 'case' only doing one label at a time, instead of
being able to do, for example: 'case a, b, c:' or 'case x...y',
although some of this is taken care of via extensions.
There's quite a lot that could have been done much better!
> I similarly don't think that is
> true; I have certainly been annoyed by this, and I suspect
> others have as well. But again, people know how to work around
> it.
Yes, various workarounds are needed, such as the gotos in your examples.
But if we're going to use 'goto', then why bother with 'break' at all?
Presumably it is to make life easier.
> C is not anyone's mother; I doubt anyone who is not a kook feels
> like they need to rise to the defense of its honor when it is
> criticized.
Defending every shortcoming or quirk to the death seems common here. And
there will always be people to whom they are an invaluable feature (see
SL's recent post).
> What I think some people are sort of mystified by is this idea
> that this one thing is such a deal-breaker as to render the
> language unuseable.
In my case I would find it unusable for major projects if I had to code
manually. I'm just to spoilt for one, but always I'm a terrible typist
and C needs a LOT of fiddly typing.
>> Maybe, some compilers with certain options may point out something about
>> fall-through, so you're aware something's amiss, but it doesn't get
>> around the problem: you can't simply swap if-else chains with switch
>> even when the latter is a better fit.
>>
>> This is a definite flaw in the language.
>
> It _can be_ an _annoyance_ in the language, sure. Is it a,
> "definite flaw"? That is subjective. You clearly feel that it
> is. I couldn't say whether anyone else feels that way; I think
> it's too minor to matter for most programmers.
It's minor until it bites - see the example below.
>> [snip]
>> In my language and in my programs, breaking out of a loop from within a
>> multi-way case/switch selection is a very, very common idiom which is
>> denied to C users.
>
> And yet, C is used successfully by millions of programmers
> around the world, the results of which are used by billions of
> users daily.
This is my first example expressed in C (note those first three args are
passed by reference):
while (pmtype = nextcmdparam(¶mno, &name, &value, "m") {
switch (pmtype)
case pm_option: ...; break;
case pm_sourcefile:
if (passlevel == run_pass || passlevel == runpcl_pass) {
break;
Except I can't use break like that. So I have to find a workaround.
This is also 30% more tokens than my original, and that's before I fix
this problem.
So I'm sure C is perfectly usable, what we can't quantity easily is how
much extra effort is needed to get things done compared to a more
amenable syntax.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 19:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <GTazS.183760$ygUb.176068@fx23.iad> |
| In reply to | #403054 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>On 12/10/2026 18:58, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <11ainqf$3kkvd$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>This is my first example expressed in C (note those first three args are
>passed by reference):
>
> while (pmtype = nextcmdparam(¶mno, &name, &value, "m") {
> switch (pmtype)
> case pm_option: ...; break;
> case pm_sourcefile:
> if (passlevel == run_pass || passlevel == runpcl_pass) {
> break;
Aside from the incorrect syntax, it's really difficult to
determine your intent from this code fragment.
It's likely that folks here could provide more idiomatic
C if you described the problem you're attempting to solve
rather than providing an incomplete and incorrect code
fragment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 22:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11ajhhk$286mm$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403057 |
On 2026-10-12 21:52, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> On 12/10/2026 18:58, Dan Cross wrote:
>>> In article <11ainqf$3kkvd$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> This is my first example expressed in C (note those first three args are
>> passed by reference):
>>
>> while (pmtype = nextcmdparam(¶mno, &name, &value, "m") {
>> switch (pmtype)
>> case pm_option: ...; break;
>> case pm_sourcefile:
>> if (passlevel == run_pass || passlevel == runpcl_pass) {
>> break;
>
> Aside from the incorrect syntax, it's really difficult to
> determine your intent from this code fragment.
Well, to me it's clear what he meant by this code.
But it's unimportant since it doesn't add anything to what he has
repeated countless times; that in a loop()-switch() structure the
inner 'break' in the 'switch' would not leave the loop().
Such code exists in various forms, it's not something "strange".
It's also no problem that couldn't be addressed by other patterns.
(But he refuses to use them, or he's just blind to not see them.)
A loop()-specific 'break' would serve him (if he wants to abstain
from 'goto', or is refusing from doing just a slight code change).
(Maybe if he'd just hold his breath long enough something would
happen?)
>
> It's likely that folks here could provide more idiomatic
> C if you described the problem you're attempting to solve
> rather than providing an incomplete and incorrect code
> fragment.
I think it's sufficiently idiomatic. And I don't think that he could
provide anything where the answers would pass though the mental block
he obviously has. The thread was (by content) dead already very soon.
IMO it makes no sense to continue arguing with him.
Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 21:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11ajhka$3vuli$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403057 |
On 12/10/2026 20:52, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> On 12/10/2026 18:58, Dan Cross wrote:
>>> In article <11ainqf$3kkvd$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> This is my first example expressed in C (note those first three args are
>> passed by reference):
>>
>> while (pmtype = nextcmdparam(¶mno, &name, &value, "m") {
>> switch (pmtype)
>> case pm_option: ...; break;
>> case pm_sourcefile:
>> if (passlevel == run_pass || passlevel == runpcl_pass) {
>> break;
>
> Aside from the incorrect syntax, it's really difficult to
> determine your intent from this code fragment.
Really? It's attempting to break out of the while-loop from inside that
switch statement. What we've been discussing at length.
But it won't work like this because in this context, that 'break' is
switch-break not loop-break.
> It's likely that folks here could provide more idiomatic
> C if you described the problem you're attempting to solve
> rather than providing an incomplete and incorrect code
> fragment.
I'd be interested in the idiomatic C that doesn't involve rewriting my
code or adding complexity in order to get around that silly clash.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 21:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rbczS.252606$ITPb.1159@fx05.iad> |
| In reply to | #403060 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>On 12/10/2026 20:52, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> On 12/10/2026 18:58, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>> In article <11ainqf$3kkvd$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> This is my first example expressed in C (note those first three args are
>>> passed by reference):
>>>
>>> while (pmtype = nextcmdparam(¶mno, &name, &value, "m") {
>>> switch (pmtype)
>>> case pm_option: ...; break;
>>> case pm_sourcefile:
>>> if (passlevel == run_pass || passlevel == runpcl_pass) {
>>> break;
>>
>> Aside from the incorrect syntax, it's really difficult to
>> determine your intent from this code fragment.
>
>Really? It's attempting to break out of the while-loop from inside that
>switch statement. What we've been discussing at length.
It's not clear from the context within the code fragment that
you intended the second break to terminate the while loop,
or for the first break to terminate the while loop (or
for neither to continue the switch).
>
>But it won't work like this because in this context, that 'break' is
>switch-break not loop-break.
Which break? There are two.
>
>
>> It's likely that folks here could provide more idiomatic
>> C if you described the problem you're attempting to solve
>> rather than providing an incomplete and incorrect code
>> fragment.
>
>I'd be interested in the idiomatic C that doesn't involve rewriting my
>code or adding complexity in order to get around that silly clash.
>
Describe the problem the code is intended to
address. Rather than a very small fragment
of code without any context. It appears to be parsing
a command line, something done quite frequently in C.
e.g.
/*
* Process the input parameters.
*/
while ((c = getopt(argc, argv, "al:t:L:e:vV")) != EOF) {
switch (c) {
case 'a':
level = c_mp::REV_A; // Select revision A behavior
break;
case 'l':
logfile = optarg;
break;
case 't':
tracefile = optarg;
break;
case 'L':
libpath = optarg;
break;
case 'e':
startupfile = optarg;
break;
case 'v':
verbose = true;
break;
case 'V':
lp->log("%s\n", vsim_built);
exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}
}
The remaining arguments in argv[] are are application dependent,
and don't need to be handled in the body of the switch or the
while loop. They can easily be handled in a subsequent loop
over the remaining arguments.
In any case, using goto to leave a switch statement nested
in a loop is certainly an idiomatic construct that is widely
used to leave the outer loop early. Another option is to declare
a local bool before the switch in the while loop, initialized to false.
Set it to true when you want to bail early:
while (condition)
bool bail = false;
switch (blah) {
case 1:
break;
case 2:
if (fred == name) bail = true;
break;
}
if (bail) break;
do_something();
}
Whether that is beautiful or ugly is a matter of opinion,
and you've made yours very clear.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 22:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11ajkev$v8c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403063 |
On 12/10/2026 22:21, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> On 12/10/2026 20:52, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>> On 12/10/2026 18:58, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>> In article <11ainqf$3kkvd$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>> This is my first example expressed in C (note those first three args are
>>>> passed by reference):
>>>>
>>>> while (pmtype = nextcmdparam(¶mno, &name, &value, "m") {
>>>> switch (pmtype)
>>>> case pm_option: ...; break;
>>>> case pm_sourcefile:
>>>> if (passlevel == run_pass || passlevel == runpcl_pass) {
>>>> break;
>>>
>>> Aside from the incorrect syntax, it's really difficult to
>>> determine your intent from this code fragment.
>>
>> Really? It's attempting to break out of the while-loop from inside that
>> switch statement. What we've been discussing at length.
>
> It's not clear from the context within the code fragment that
> you intended the second break to terminate the while loop,
> or for the first break to terminate the while loop (or
> for neither to continue the switch).
>
>>
>> But it won't work like this because in this context, that 'break' is
>> switch-break not loop-break.
>
> Which break? There are two.
Oh, OK. The original didn't need switch-break, it only had loop-break.
I added switch-break for the C version; that is the first 'break' above.
But loop-break is also 'break'. So it is still wreaking confusion!
For the same reason too: the intent in each case is different.
>
>>
>>
>>> It's likely that folks here could provide more idiomatic
>>> C if you described the problem you're attempting to solve
>>> rather than providing an incomplete and incorrect code
>>> fragment.
>>
>> I'd be interested in the idiomatic C that doesn't involve rewriting my
>> code or adding complexity in order to get around that silly clash.
>>
>
> Describe the problem the code is intended to
> address. Rather than a very small fragment
> of code without any context. It appears to be parsing
> a command line, something done quite frequently in C.
(Yes. It is normally parsing '[options] file [options]', but when a
filename is seen and that file is to be run immediately, it needs to
stop parsing as those trailing options will be processed by the
application that is run.
Maybe I should have used the simpler example.)
> In any case, using goto to leave a switch statement nested
> in a loop is certainly an idiomatic construct that is widely
> used to leave the outer loop early. Another option is to declare
> a local bool before the switch in the while loop, initialized to false.
>
> Set it to true when you want to bail early:
>
> while (condition)
> bool bail = false;
> switch (blah) {
> case 1:
> break;
> case 2:
> if (fred == name) bail = true;
> break;
> }
> if (bail) break;
> do_something();
> }
>
> Whether that is beautiful or ugly is a matter of opinion,
> and you've made yours very clear.
Using my proposal, that would look like:
while (condition)
newswitch (blah) {
case 1: # this is an empty block
case 2: # this is separate
if (fred == name) break;
}
do_something();
}
No 'break' is routinely needed for the switch. 'break' here exits the loop.
Not that this was serious, but probably 'case' would need a new keyword
since the meaning of 'case 1: case 2:' is significantly different
between old and new switch contexts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 00:25 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20261013002531.000025b8@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #403060 |
On Mon, 12 Oct 2026 21:57:46 +0100
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 12/10/2026 20:52, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> >> On 12/10/2026 18:58, Dan Cross wrote:
> >>> In article <11ainqf$3kkvd$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> This is my first example expressed in C (note those first three
> >> args are passed by reference):
> >>
> >> while (pmtype = nextcmdparam(¶mno, &name, &value, "m") {
> >> switch (pmtype)
> >> case pm_option: ...; break;
> >> case pm_sourcefile:
> >> if (passlevel == run_pass || passlevel ==
> >> runpcl_pass) { break;
> >
> > Aside from the incorrect syntax, it's really difficult to
> > determine your intent from this code fragment.
>
> Really? It's attempting to break out of the while-loop from inside
> that switch statement. What we've been discussing at length.
>
Thank you. You correctly identified the most common of the patterns
that triggered my response to Janis that started this particular
sub-thread.
The important part missing in your excerpt is that there are several
variables declared and initialized before loop and further processed
both within and after the loop.
> But it won't work like this because in this context, that 'break' is
> switch-break not loop-break.
>
>
> > It's likely that folks here could provide more idiomatic
> > C if you described the problem you're attempting to solve
> > rather than providing an incomplete and incorrect code
> > fragment.
>
> I'd be interested in the idiomatic C that doesn't involve rewriting
> my code or adding complexity in order to get around that silly clash.
>
As far as I am concerned, my most common workaround is goto. Others can
have other preferences.
It works well, but the need to invent the name of the label is a bit
annoying.
BTW, Ada/VHDL solution, with optional label before the loop also
suffers from this particular defect. Yes, it is more "structural" than
goto. It is considered important by many people, supposedly including
yourself. But on my personal ladder of preferences "structureness" by
itself is not particularly high as long as it does not bring another
benefits, like, for example, locality=reduced scope.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 22:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11ajmfe$mfc$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #403054 |
In article <11ajcv8$3u33s$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>On 12/10/2026 18:58, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <11ainqf$3kkvd$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>>> This is valid C still, but it doesn't have the same behaviour.
>>
>> Yes. I guess I fail to see the point of these, as what you are
>> trying to show seems obvious to me, and I strongly suspect it is
>> obvious to others, as well.
>>
>> Are you suggesting that people are unaware of how `break`
>> interacts with `switch` inside of a loop? I don't think that is
>> true; I think people are well aware, but know how to work around
>> it and don't see it as a huge impediment; more of a mild
>> inconvenience.
>>
>> Or are you suggesting that they are trying to defend the design
>> of the language in this regard?
>
>That's what it seems like: obstinately trying to pretend it is not a
>flaw, that it makes perfect sense, then you never want to do any of the
>stuff where it causes problems anyway etc.
I think that may be your interpretation of what others are
saying, but that is not necessarily what they _are_ saying.
>There are several issues discussed regarding switch:
>
>* That its structure is totally chaotic (there /is/ no structure)
I think Keith said exactly that; it mixes structure and no
structure.
>* That 'break' is needed to escape from the middle of that statement to
> the end
I think the discussion is mostly you saying that this is
terrible, and others shrugging with their workarounds.
>* That that 'break' happens also to clash, needlessly, with loop-break
Yeah, I also think that's annoying.
>* And also with 'case' only doing one label at a time, instead of
> being able to do, for example: 'case a, b, c:' or 'case x...y',
> although some of this is taken care of via extensions.
That's also kind of irritating.
>There's quite a lot that could have been done much better!
I mean, yes. But as I said before, C is the language that it
is; I will acknowledge that it could have been better, but here
we are. Aside from that acknowledgement, what more is there to
actually do about it at this point?
>> I similarly don't think that is
>> true; I have certainly been annoyed by this, and I suspect
>> others have as well. But again, people know how to work around
>> it.
>
>Yes, various workarounds are needed, such as the gotos in your examples.
>But if we're going to use 'goto', then why bother with 'break' at all?
>
>Presumably it is to make life easier.
I don't know. I wasn't in the room when it was invented; its
immediate predecessor, BCPL, had no way to mark the end of a
`case` in a `switchon` at all (BCPL grew `ENDCASE` later),
though did have `valof` and `resultis` for obtaining the values
of _blocks_. So, one could write something like:
let howmany = valof switchon n into
$( case 0: resultis "zero"
case 1: resultis "one"
case 2: resultis "two"
default resultis "many"
$)
And so on; something one cannot do in C (but can in Rust).
Why did C bother with `break;` to end a `case` and not something
unique, like `ENDCASE` in later versions of BCPL?
I'm speculating, but I suspect it was because they wanted to
minimize the _need_ for `goto`; that unlike in BCPL blocks could
not return values; that `break` already existed to break out of a
loop and the control flow is not dissimilar conceptually; and
perhaps more importantly they were building a compiler intended
to run on a very, very small machine, shared by others, and ran
out of space to build something more elaborate. By the time
they had a bigger computer that could compile a better language,
the construct and its consequences were well understood and
there was a body of code that would have to change, and they did
not feel it was worth it.
At least, I imagine it was something like that.
>> C is not anyone's mother; I doubt anyone who is not a kook feels
>> like they need to rise to the defense of its honor when it is
>> criticized.
>
>Defending every shortcoming or quirk to the death seems common here. And
>there will always be people to whom they are an invaluable feature (see
>SL's recent post).
I don't think that anyone is doing that. I suspect it is the
opposite: others wonder why you latch onto every quirk or
shortcoming as evidence for your ultimately subjective opinion
that C is a bad language.
It is clear that you do not like C; you are not exactly hiding
it. But there is no C language politburo; no one will denounce
you for dreaming different dreams about the poor structure of
`switch`, and no one is going to challenge you to a duel over
your criticism of C.
But it is also clear that much of your dislike is opinion, based
on things that most others here just don't care about; the
pecularities of the `switch` statement are a good example. I
occasionally find it irritating, but 99% of the time I just
don't care; one learns to write `break` and one moves on with
one's life. Life is too short as it is to get worked up over
the `break` statement.
Others also point out that your criticism is often rooted in
misconceptions or misunderstandings of the language, and that is
fair: if you say something that is technically wrong about C as
evidence in support of your opinion about it, then you _should_
expect pushback. That's not anyone picking on you, it's them
holding you to a standard.
>> What I think some people are sort of mystified by is this idea
>> that this one thing is such a deal-breaker as to render the
>> language unuseable.
>
>In my case I would find it unusable for major projects if I had to code
>manually. I'm just to spoilt for one, but always I'm a terrible typist
>and C needs a LOT of fiddly typing.
Ok.
>>> Maybe, some compilers with certain options may point out something about
>>> fall-through, so you're aware something's amiss, but it doesn't get
>>> around the problem: you can't simply swap if-else chains with switch
>>> even when the latter is a better fit.
>>>
>>> This is a definite flaw in the language.
>>
>> It _can be_ an _annoyance_ in the language, sure. Is it a,
>> "definite flaw"? That is subjective. You clearly feel that it
>> is. I couldn't say whether anyone else feels that way; I think
>> it's too minor to matter for most programmers.
>
>It's minor until it bites - see the example below.
>
>[snip]
>This is my first example expressed in C (note those first three args are
>passed by reference):
>
> while (pmtype = nextcmdparam(¶mno, &name, &value, "m") {
> switch (pmtype)
> case pm_option: ...; break;
> case pm_sourcefile:
> if (passlevel == run_pass || passlevel == runpcl_pass) {
> break;
>
>Except I can't use break like that. So I have to find a workaround.
>
>This is also 30% more tokens than my original, and that's before I fix
>this problem.
The obvious syntax error aside, I'll wager that, to most C
programmers, this is still minor. I won't belabor the
workarounds as those are both well-known and have already been
discussed several times in this thread, alone. The only part
that bears mentioning here is that 99% of C programmers know
perfectly well how to deal with this and, frankly, just don't
find it that much of an imposition.
I think the impedence mismatch with what you're saying is that,
because it is so minor to so many people, it seems mystifying
that you think it's such a big deal.
>So I'm sure C is perfectly usable, what we can't quantity easily is how
>much extra effort is needed to get things done compared to a more
>amenable syntax.
That may be true. But I suspect that if you took a survey of,
say, 1000 C programmers, this would be unlikely to enter the top
10 complaints of more than a handful of them.
- Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 17:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11ajsfi$28f2$5@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #403054 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> That's what it seems like: obstinately trying to pretend it is not a
> flaw, that it makes perfect sense, then you never want to do any of
> the stuff where it causes problems anyway etc.
Nobody is trying to pretend that there are no flaws. The rest of
us acknowledge that C has flaws (though we don't necessarily agree
with what those flaws are) and then get on with writing working C
code in spite of those flaws.
Most of us are also aware of how very difficult it would be to "fix"
those flaws without breaking existing code.
You completely misunderstand where most of us are coming from,
even after it's explained to you.
> There are several issues discussed regarding switch:
>
> * That its structure is totally chaotic (there /is/ no structure)
An overstatement, but I don't entirely disagree. switch is a low-level
control structure. I'd say it's notable for its low-levelness even
compared to other C features.
> * That 'break' is needed to escape from the middle of that statement to
> the end
Yes. We all know that.
> * That that 'break' happens also to clash, needlessly, with loop-break
Yes, we all know that. BCPL had BREAK and ENDCASE. B apparently
dropped both, and then re-added just BREAK. C inherited break
from B. I haven't seen anyone say that that wasn't a mistake.
We just don't spend decades worrying about it.
Tell me, have this ever been a problem for you personally? Have
you ever written a switch statement nested in a loop and wanted to
break out of the loop from within the switch? (In C; I'm not asking
about your experience with other langauges.) How much difficulty
has it really cause for you?
> * And also with 'case' only doing one label at a time, instead of
> being able to do, for example: 'case a, b, c:' or 'case x...y',
> although some of this is taken care of via extensions.
"case a, b, c:" is written as "case a: case b: case c:". It's a little
more verbose than it needs to be. It's very mildly annoying.
As for "case x...y", that's already proposed for C2Y, and is
documented in the N3886 draft. You continue to whine about problems
that have already been solved.
> There's quite a lot that could have been done much better!
So invent a time machine and tell Dennis Ritchie to do it your way.
[...]
> Defending every shortcoming or quirk to the death seems common
> here.
No, it isn't.
[...]
--
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]
Page 9 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web