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 | 2026-10-13 23:19 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 315 — 21 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 Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-16 13:12 -0700
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 Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-16 04:46 -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> - 2026-10-16 14:22 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 15:00 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-17 01:29 +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 cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-13 20:52 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 22:24 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-14 00:03 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 10:53 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-14 17:54 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 19:48 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 11:16 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-13 21:54 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-16 15:24 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 21:42 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-16 21:46 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 15:03 -0700
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 bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 18:15 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 18:27 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-14 01:50 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 10:58 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-13 22:54 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-13 16:45 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 18:34 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-14 05:17 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 13:46 +0100
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 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-13 23:16 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 18:44 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 17:33 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 00:21 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 20:40 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 03:59 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 21:35 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 11:27 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 12:17 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 12:38 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 16:49 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 19:30 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-14 23:28 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-14 21:30 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 21:56 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 21:59 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-15 01:26 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-15 12:01 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-15 11:45 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-15 15:57 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-15 18:10 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-16 02:42 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-15 20:42 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-15 23:57 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-15 23:22 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-16 12:40 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-17 00:01 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 16:53 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-17 03:19 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-15 05:17 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-15 14:37 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-15 20:50 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-15 19:59 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-15 20:49 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 18:51 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Peyton" <peyton@solacium.com> - 2026-10-14 11:04 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 19:47 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 13:58 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-15 12:08 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 14:23 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-14 14:35 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-16 03:36 -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 ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-10-13 17:28 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-14 02:05 +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
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-13 22:00 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 23:19 +0100
Page 14 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 Next page →
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 19:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11aom8a$6sa$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #403159 |
In article <11aoff0$1n82v$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>On 14/10/2026 13:38, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <11anobe$1dt0e$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I am aware that you will tell me that it is justified
>> because that problem is actually the one worth solving, and the
>> others are not; you needn't bother. Simply put, I disagree that
>> that one problem is sufficiently important to warrant its own
>> solution, particularly when something more general is already
>> known and available in the language (labeled break/continue).
>
>I missed this bit.
>
>Is labeled break now available in C?
It's in C2y, and has been implemented in (at least) LLVM/clang
and GCC. I don't know about other compilers.
>If so, how would it be used here:
>
>
> while (1) {
> switch (x) {
> case y:
> Break;
>
>where that Break is meant to quit the loop.
term% cat lb.c
#include <stdio.h>
int
main(void)
{
int sum = 0;
outer:
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < 100; j++) {
int p = i * j;
switch (p) {
case 500:
break outer;
default:
sum += p;
break;
}
}
}
printf("sum = %d\n", sum);
return 0;
}
term% clang-23 -std=c2y -o lb lb.c
term% ./lb
sum = 235000
term% gcc-16 -std=c2y -o lb lb.c
term% ./lb
sum = 235000
term% sed 's/outer./\;/' lb.c >lb2.c
term% clang-23 -std=c2y -o lb2 lb2.c
term% ./lb2
sum = 24500500
term%
>Remember that if DMR hadn't made that screw-up in 1972 it would simply
>have been as it is above with his choice of keyword in place of Break.
As I said in my other post, you incorrectly assume that that was
the fundamental issue, when really it's just a detail: the
problem was that no facility to break out of nested control
structures as provided. Remedied now!
>But I would be interested in trying out the new feature.
So do it. You don't need me to hold your hand.
- Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 13:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11aoqed$1qib2$1@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #403159 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 14/10/2026 13:38, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <11anobe$1dt0e$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I am aware that you will tell me that it is justified
>> because that problem is actually the one worth solving, and the
>> others are not; you needn't bother. Simply put, I disagree that
>> that one problem is sufficiently important to warrant its own
>> solution, particularly when something more general is already
>> known and available in the language (labeled break/continue).
>
> I missed this bit.
How?? I've mentioned it more than once in this thread.
> Is labeled break now available in C?
It's proposed for C2y, and implemented as an extension in gcc and clang.
The latest C2y draft is
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3886.pdf
6.8.2 describes named iteration and switch statements.
6.8.7.3 and 6.8.7.4 describe the "continue" and "break" statements.
> If so, how would it be used here:
>
> while (1) {
> switch (x) {
> case y:
> Break;
>
> where that Break is meant to quit the loop.
I have no doubt that you can figure it out after reading the cited
sections. (I'm not sure why you spelled "break" with an uppercase 'B'.)
[...]
Elsewhere, you've mentioned that labels have function scope.
That's not a problem. A named "break" or "continue" can only
refer to the label of an enclosing iteration or switch statement.
"break FOO;" where FOO does not apply to an enclosing loop or switch
is a constraint violation. But "goto FOO;" is valid as long as
"FOO:" is within the same function (with some restrictions that
aren't relevant here).
--
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 | 2026-10-15 12:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11aq8nn$206gh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403168 |
On 2026-10-14 22:58, Keith Thompson wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 14/10/2026 13:38, Dan Cross wrote: >>> In article <11anobe$1dt0e$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> >>> Yes, I am aware that you will tell me that it is justified >>> because that problem is actually the one worth solving, and the >>> others are not; you needn't bother. Simply put, I disagree that >>> that one problem is sufficiently important to warrant its own >>> solution, particularly when something more general is already >>> known and available in the language (labeled break/continue). >> >> I missed this bit. > > How?? If operating one's intellect in a batten-down-the-hatches mode, or if a brain is working in /dev/null mode, are two possibilities that occur to me to miss that. I also see the possibility that in a heated discussion one might be tempted to prioritize a rebuttal in a post without beforehand taking the time thinking about the provided information. (Although the former two possibilities seem more likely in this case.) > I've mentioned it more than once in this thread. A couple other posters as well. Janis > [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 14:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11aorsh$1qib2$2@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #403148 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
>> But as Keith pointed out, W14 is now entertaining proposals to
>> add labeled `break` to the language. I haven't looked myself,
>> but if that is usable in a `switch` context, then it would solve
>> the problem for good.
>
> OK. Although in that form, it really is little different from
> 'goto'. I believe the main difference is that the label goes at the
> beginning of the loop rather than the end!
Hardly.
Like most or all "structured" control flow constructs, it's a kind of
restricted goto -- and it's the restrictions that make it useful in
writing clear code.
"break", with or without a label, can only jump forward. That makes it
much more difficult to use it to write spaghetti code.
Yes, "break FOO;" is equivalent to a goto, given an appropriately placed
label. So what?
FOO:
for (blah;blah;blah) {
BAR:
while (blah) {
if (cond1) {
break FOO;
}
else if (cond2) {
break BAR;
}
}
}
"break FOO" is implemented as a jump to a point just after the end
of the outer loop. But the way I think of it is that "FOO" is the
name of the entire outer loop, not just a single point in the code.
"break FOO;" applies to the named loop, causing execution of the
loop to terminate. The fact that it's equivalent to a goto (just
as "break;" is) is an implementation detail.
One very minor infelicity is that the same syntax is used for labels
intended to be the targets of gotos and labels intended to name
loops and switch statements. I think this same issue occurs in
most languages that have named breaks. (Ada is an exception; it
uses a deliberately heavy syntax for goto labels, "<<LABEL>>", and
a simpler syntax for loop names, "NAME:". But Ada had both gotos
and named loops from the begining.) There has been a proposal to
use a different syntax for named loops ("for NAME (;;)"), but it's
not reflected in the latest C2y draft. The fact that a loop name
can also be used as the target of a goto is a trivial problem,
perhaps a non-problem, solved by just not doing that.
> And maybe those scoping rules will be different: goto labels have
> function-wide scope.
See the C2y draft.
[...]
--
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 | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 14:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <frMzS.2749$e_i.171@fx08.iad> |
| In reply to | #403132 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >On 13/10/2026 01:33, Keith Thompson wrote: >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> [...] >I've got a better idea. I added an extra keyword to my C compiler called >"breakloop". It's like 'break' but always works with the nearest >enclosing loop, even from inside switch. It's hardly a new idea. The 1967 BPL compiler at burroughs supported 'EXITLOOP', 'EXITCOND', 'EXITCASE' and 'EXITBLOCK'; each with the expected semantics for the name.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 03:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <864iemq6ds.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #402988 |
Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> writes:
> On Sun 10/11/2026 6:33 AM, David Brown wrote:
>
>> It is quite obvious that it is easy to write code with loops + break
>> within a switch. It is equally obvious that it is easy to avoid
>> such constructs - there are always ways to avoid a "break" in a
>> loop, and if the code run within a switch case is complex, it is
>> often practical to refactor it into a separate function. But
>> presumably Michael has reasons not do do that.
>
> Um... The common pattern for a "search"-style loop looks as follows
>
> for (/* domain condition */)
> {
> ...
> if (/* search condition */)
> break;
> ...
> }
>
> So, loops that terminate with `break` are the mainstay of every
> competently written code. Moving the "early termination" condition
> into the loop header (i.e. lumping the search condition with the
> domain condition) is a very ugly anti-pattern in most cases. Moreover,
> majority of the loops in an average C program are such "search"-style
> loops, meaning that they do have an "early termination" condition.
>
> Now, while overwhelming majority of my loops would use `if` to check
> the "early termination", I can imagine that there sill be cases where
> switch` is applicable and more appropriate than an `if`. Yes, a
> switch` can always be replaced with an `if` ladder, but being _forced_
> to do so by a language limitation doesn't look right.
>
> And writing a separate function just to work around a weird language
> limitation... that doesn't look right either.
I'm afraid I must simply flat out disagree with some of the comments
above.
Certainly it is true that many C programs use a for-if-break pattern
in some or many places. It's fair to call it a common pattern. But
it's wrong to say it is /the/ common pattern. There are other ways
of skinning that cat, and I expect most C programmers have used some
or all of them in the normal course of program development.
Similarly, the assertion that "loops that terminate with `break` are
the mainstay of every competently written code" is an absurd
overstatement. No doubt break-exiting loops are a significant part
of many programs. Probably they are a mainstay in some of them.
But to say they are /the/ mainstay in any non-trivial program is at
best a stretch; to assert that they are /the/ mainstay in /all/
competently written code is simply wrong.
I looked at some statistics for a couple of code bases. The relative
amounts of switch() versus loops (for(), while(), do/while()) was
relatively constant, about one in six or one in seven. Use of break
varied a lot, from close to six percent to under two percents (here
percent means percentage of occurrences of all control keywords).
The biggest category was if() and return, over 80% of the total and
roughly eight times the amount of looping structures. In the scheme
of things switch() is not very important. Loops are important. The
more prominent if() and return are very important. The idea that,
one, exiting a loop with break is always an essential program element
and, two, it's important to be able to do that using switch(), isn't
a good fit for the facts on the ground.
Incidentally, the comment that writing a separate function "doesn't
look right" seems backwards. Breaking large functions into smaller
functions is a good way to make code easier to understand. By their
nature switch() statements tend to be large (in terms of lines of
code) so putting the switch() inside a separate function is likely to
be a good thing, not a bad thing. The motivation for doing that is
not about working around a language limitation, but about writing
better code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-10 16:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11aei9t$24k8m$4@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #402890 |
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2026 20:08:20 +0200
> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2026-10-10 15:11, bart wrote:
>> >
>> > Well, Algol 68 doesn't even have 'break'. For unusual control-flow
>> > it needs goto.
>>
>> Yes. - And while "C" has 'goto' as well it also supports 'break' for
>> some purposes; e.g. as a loop-exit, so it makes sense to reuse that
>> keyword for other purposes as in 'switch' where it's been useful.
>
> After practicing C programming for more than 35 years I am deeply
> convinced that reuse of the same 'break' keyword for loops and for
> switch was a mistake. But then again, DRM did not have a benefit
> of hindsight.
Actually he (DMR) did. C's parent language, BCPL, had distinct BREAK
and ENDCASE keywords.
I agree that combining them both into "break" was a mistake. At this
point, I think the best solution is named loops and "break loop_name;".
There are proposals for C2y.
A distinct "endcase" keyword would have been cleaner IMHO, but code
using the existing case/break will continue to exist approximately
forever.
--
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 | 2026-10-10 21:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11ae62d$221po$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402887 |
On 10/10/2026 19:08, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 2026-10-10 15:11, bart wrote:
>> On 10/10/2026 13:01, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>> [...]
>> If you look at actual C codebases, fall-through is incredibly rare.
>> Nearly always, it will use break, or sometimes other control-flow such
>> as return or goto, so that fall-through doesn't happen.
>
> I have no representative statistics, but my impression also matches
> that; fall-through is certainly much rarer than the 'break' case.
>
> In 6 C-sources in some of my directories I have 30 'switch' statements
> (some nested on more than one level), and in two cases fall-throughs.
> In another (non-C) place I find 40+ fall-throughs. - Not predominantly,
> but it's certainly not only an exotic corner-case! - So there's reason
> to support it, best without clumsy surrogate-constructs (workarounds).
This is difficult for me to survey as it take some effort in a compiler,
and I no long have many C codebases around. But here is one attempt:
Program Case Labels Break/Goto/Return
Piet 6 6
SQLite3 793 805
Lua 555 472
Nano 9 9
TinyPas 160 118
STB 69 62
MiniGMP 13 13
Middle column is total case labels which not followed by another case label.
Right column is total number of switch-breaks, plus return/goto IF they
are the first and only statement in the case-block. (Being unstructured
makes it tricky.)
So Return/Goto following other code is not counted. In some cases I have
verified that some been missed for that reason.
This is not foolproof: one case may have 2 breaks, and the following
none so falls through. But from visual inspections failed to show
significant fall-through in use.
>>
>> Note that if-statement blocks don't have fall-through either when
>> there is an else branch.
>>
>> Imagine having to write this: [...]
>
> (Slow down, cool down your brain! - It makes no sense to speak about
> fall-throughs in contexts of 'if' constructs. Making up inappropriate
> comparisons never lead you anywhere;
If it is probably the most relevant comparison that you can make.
A statement like this:
if (cond) {A} else {B}
can be always be expressed as:
switch (!!cond)
case 1: {A}; break;
default: {B}
}
Notice that 'break' the switch needs, that 'if' doesn't.
>> I guess everyone would still defend that choice (because for one
>> person in a million it will be valuable feature). But it is CLEARLY
>> wrong.
>
> Sadly you show again and confirm that it's just *you* who speaks about
> "right" or "wrong" (even "clearly"), and again fall into the habit to
> speak for or at least make wild guesses about "everyone".
> I've shown above that I'm obviously regularly using it
You haven't given an example, which would be interesting. But this is
the curious fact about C, that after 50 years, every misfeature and
quirk is an invaluable feature to somebody!
- and before my
> post I didn't even know that fact, so it's nothing about "defending"
> anything. And I've got not yet any indication - i.e. before your own
> personal complaints about it - that only "one person / million" would
Well, that was about fall-through in an IF statement.
> make good use of that feature; that's also completely implausible, and
> there's many facts that support this opinion (e.g. people talking about
> it, being part of coding standards, reading various explanations about
> it as being a "*concept* in programming", etc.).
>
> (Your opinions don't reflect the world, but rather just your personal
> vicinity - which I fear isn't even more than the personal small bubble
> you reside in.)
No. Look at how 'switch' implemented in pretty much every other language
other C (and C++ which inherited it).
How many have default fall-through?
I suggest most people have the same opinion as I do on this.
>>
>>> Just imagine if some C-programmers wanted a fall-through semantics
>>> but all they got would be the Pascal or Algol 68 'case' construct.
>>
>> Well, Algol 68 doesn't even have 'break'. For unusual control-flow it
>> needs goto.
>
> Yes. - And while "C" has 'goto' as well it also supports 'break' for
> some purposes; e.g. as a loop-exit, so it makes sense to reuse that
> keyword for other purposes as in 'switch' where it's been useful.
No, it makes no sense at all, because their use-cases overlap.
It means that, inside a SWITCH statement, you can't do an early break
out of a case-block from inside a loop.
And if inside a loop, you can't break out of that loop from inside a
switch statement:
while (1) {
if (x == 3)
break;
switch (x) {
case 3: break;
}
}
The first break works within IF. But if you choose to use SWITCH, if
doesn't work.
You still think it makes sense?
> (Somewhere you thematized whether fall-through should be the default
> behavior of 'switch'; for me it would make as much sense to switch
> roles of the defaults in C's 'switch' to make the more common case
> terser, or have explicit statements for both branch-behaviors types.
> Actually I don't care much; there's more important things here that
> I'd find noteworthy; see below.)
>
>>
>> I don't have fall-through either; it is just so rare. But I do have a
>> 'recase' statement to pass control to an /arbitrary/ block, not just
>> the one that happens to follow.
>
> (I'm not interested in your language.)
Why not? You don't have to use it; it just needs to exist.
A 'structured switch' has been discussed. And I have a 'structured
switch' implemented in a equally low level language, so Ask Me Anything.
>> This way, BLOCKS CAN BE REORDERED without changing behaviour.
>
> Fine for you.
It's fine for everyone.
>> But C's switch is just /too/ low-level. For example, a structured
>> switch could be easily transformed into an if-else chain.
>>
>> You can't do that in general with C switch because there IS no
>> structure; it can be totally chaotic.
>
> I recall, the disappointment I had with C's 'switch' was that it didn't
> support "strings" as tags.[*] - But so what? Noting that as impossible
> and carrying on, either with workarounds ('if' cascades) or switching
> the language (if appropriate, possible, and worthwhile).
>
> [*] In the GNU version of Awk - a much simpler but higher abstracted
> language - you can nicely compare strings, and even regexps.
I have a narrow view of SWITCH, which is specifically for use with
integer values. That allows comparison of N unique possibilities
simultaneously, or in O(1) time.
So if you're comparing strings, then it is not SWITCH IMO, unless those
strings are perhaps interned.
(I use a different feature when it needs to be more flexible, and in
that case, any type for which equality, or sometimes 'in', is defined,
will work.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-10 23:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11ae9r3$cjlv$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402899 |
[ I skip most of what you wrote because it's not adding anything new
and I basically still just disagree with all you presented; if you
re-read my previous post you have my comments on your "new" text. ]
On 2026-10-10 22:09, bart wrote:
> On 10/10/2026 19:08, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> On 2026-10-10 15:11, bart wrote:
>>> On 10/10/2026 13:01, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Just imagine if some C-programmers wanted a fall-through semantics
>>>> but all they got would be the Pascal or Algol 68 'case' construct.
>>>
>>> Well, Algol 68 doesn't even have 'break'. For unusual control-flow it
>>> needs goto.
>>
>> Yes. - And while "C" has 'goto' as well it also supports 'break' for
>> some purposes; e.g. as a loop-exit, so it makes sense to reuse that
>> keyword for other purposes as in 'switch' where it's been useful.
>
> No, it makes no sense at all, because their use-cases overlap.
>
> It means that, inside a SWITCH statement, you can't do an early break
> out of a case-block from inside a loop.
>
> And if inside a loop, you can't break out of that loop from inside a
> switch statement:
>
> while (1) {
> if (x == 3)
> break;
>
> switch (x) {
> case 3: break;
> }
> }
>
> The first break works within IF. But if you choose to use SWITCH, if
> doesn't work.
It also doesn't work in nested loops. (That's a restriction of C's
'break'.)
I don't think it makes sense to introduce another distinct keyword
to address a special case like that; that's very short-sighted. You
could still not address, e.g., a "for() for() switch()" structure.
Other languages provide more universal, thus more sensible features
to support out-of-band conditions, or more universal "local exits"
(that support more than one nested level).
> You still think it makes sense?
Yes, because it works as intended for the other common cases.
If you need a "flexible jump" just use 'goto'. The point of 'break'
is to "tame" that "harmful goto" and introduce something "lighter".
Some languages support a 'break' (and a 'continue') with a numeric
argument to handle the case of nested constructs. That is of course
yet more flexible without sacrificing the "prevent wild jumps" dogma.
[ another big snip ]
>> [*] In the GNU version of Awk - a much simpler but higher abstracted
>> language - you can nicely compare strings, and even regexps.
>
> I have a narrow view of SWITCH, which is specifically for use with
> integer values. That allows comparison of N unique possibilities
> simultaneously, or in O(1) time.
> So if you're comparing strings, then it is not SWITCH IMO, unless those
> strings are perhaps interned.
A CDC 175/176 carried a Pascal TEXT object in one machine word and
could compare it as atom. Newer standard PC CPUs have more bits in
a word than those former supercomputers. - But the point here was
that internals should be abstracted by a higher level programming
language. - And compilers have principally various possibilities to
support some "atomization" of string comparisons with compile-time
string constants. - As said, it would have been useful in many of
my application cases. (No more, no less.)
(BTW, it would be new to me that you'd have complexity guarantees in
"C".)
Janis
> [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-10 23:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11aecjq$24dls$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402911 |
On 10/10/2026 22:14, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> [ I skip most of what you wrote because it's not adding anything new
> and I basically still just disagree with all you presented; if you
> re-read my previous post you have my comments on your "new" text. ]
>
> On 2026-10-10 22:09, bart wrote:
>> On 10/10/2026 19:08, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>> On 2026-10-10 15:11, bart wrote:
>>>> On 10/10/2026 13:01, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Just imagine if some C-programmers wanted a fall-through semantics
>>>>> but all they got would be the Pascal or Algol 68 'case' construct.
>>>>
>>>> Well, Algol 68 doesn't even have 'break'. For unusual control-flow
>>>> it needs goto.
>>>
>>> Yes. - And while "C" has 'goto' as well it also supports 'break' for
>>> some purposes; e.g. as a loop-exit, so it makes sense to reuse that
>>> keyword for other purposes as in 'switch' where it's been useful.
>>
>> No, it makes no sense at all, because their use-cases overlap.
>>
>> It means that, inside a SWITCH statement, you can't do an early break
>> out of a case-block from inside a loop.
>>
>> And if inside a loop, you can't break out of that loop from inside a
>> switch statement:
>>
>> while (1) {
>> if (x == 3)
>> break;
>>
>> switch (x) {
>> case 3: break;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> The first break works within IF. But if you choose to use SWITCH, if
>> doesn't work.
>
> It also doesn't work in nested loops. (That's a restriction of C's
> 'break'.)
That is a separate matter, and one that occurs sparingly.
On the other hand, breaking out of one level is fairly common, and so is
the use of 'switch'.
Now you have an artificial problem caused by two brain-dead decisions:
* A crappy, crude design of 'switch' that leaves you stranded in the
middle of the statement
* Deciding to fix that by USING THE SAME KEYWORD as one of the loop
controls, for something that isn't to do with loops.
This is just very poor language design.
(Inside my C compiler, there are two AST tags called 'jbreak' and
'jbreaksw' - they are two distinct features.)
>
> I don't think it makes sense to introduce another distinct keyword
> to address a special case like that; that's very short-sighted. You
> could still not address, e.g., a "for() for() switch()" structure.
> Other languages provide more universal, thus more sensible features
> to support out-of-band conditions, or more universal "local exits"
> (that support more than one nested level).
THIS IS NOT A NESTED LOOP PROBLEM! It has been made into one by reusing
BREAK.
What's the big deal about keywords anyway?
>> You still think it makes sense?
>
> Yes, because it works as intended for the other common cases.
Would you have made the same choice?
Assuming yes, and assuming you'd also devise some scheme to cut across
nesting, what would happen here:
FOR
SWITCH
FOR
SWITCH
break...
You want to break out of that inner FOR, but now you have to count both
nested loops and switch. So, break 2?
So what would break 3 mean: does it get you to the end of that outer
SWITCH? This is something that would not previously have cross your mind:
SWITCH
SWITCH
break 2
That is, to use 'break' to cut to the end of the enclosing switch
statements. It is just not meaningful.
This just further shows that the two concepts are distinct.
>> I have a narrow view of SWITCH, which is specifically for use with
>> integer values. That allows comparison of N unique possibilities
>> simultaneously, or in O(1) time.
>> So if you're comparing strings, then it is not SWITCH IMO, unless
>> those strings are perhaps interned.
>
> A CDC 175/176 carried a Pascal TEXT object in one machine word and
> could compare it as atom. Newer standard PC CPUs have more bits in
> a word than those former supercomputers. - But the point here was
> that internals should be abstracted by a higher level programming
> language. - And compilers have principally various possibilities to
> support some "atomization" of string comparisons with compile-time
> string constants. - As said, it would have been useful in many of
> my application cases. (No more, no less.)
My point is that SWITCH should be a low level feature working on
integers. (Like how CASE works in Algol68.)
A version for higher level types, for runtime case-values, and a
possible sequential, ordered search, could share the same keyword, but I
would prefer a different keywords here since the semantics can be very
different.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 08:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11affmm$1m9m7$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #402911 |
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 2026-10-10 22:09, bart wrote:
>> On 10/10/2026 19:08, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>> [*] In the GNU version of Awk - a much simpler but higher abstracted
>>> language - you can nicely compare strings, and even regexps.
>>
>> I have a narrow view of SWITCH, which is specifically for use with
>> integer values. That allows comparison of N unique possibilities
>> simultaneously, or in O(1) time.
>> So if you're comparing strings, then it is not SWITCH IMO, unless those
>> strings are perhaps interned.
>
> A CDC 175/176 carried a Pascal TEXT object in one machine word and
> could compare it as atom. Newer standard PC CPUs have more bits in
> a word than those former supercomputers. - But the point here was
> that internals should be abstracted by a higher level programming
> language. - And compilers have principally various possibilities to
> support some "atomization" of string comparisons with compile-time
> string constants. - As said, it would have been useful in many of
> my application cases. (No more, no less.)
In C there are multi-character "characters". Details are implementation
defined, but AFAICS on 64-bit machine you can pack 8 bytes into single
machine word and use that in a switch. CDC used 6 bit characters, so
it could cram 10 characters into a single word. Corresponding comparison
of strings would execute as a single machine instruction. But AFAIK
Pascal did not allow to use strings in 'case' statement.
In principle C compiler could generate matching code for strings,
basically if all cases correspond to short strings it could pack
characters into a single machine word and then reuse integer
case. For longer strings it could generate either tree of
comparisons (IIUC some sparse switches use this) or use hashing
to find correct case. That would be modest extention of current
switch (with sparse case labels one needs to handle most of it
anyway). I would guess that main counterargument to such a switch
is C++ compatibility: clearly C++ would want such things for classes
and it opens a can of worms.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 10:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11afh96$286mm$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402951 |
On 2026-10-11 10:00, Waldek Hebisch wrote: > Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 2026-10-10 22:09, bart wrote: >>> On 10/10/2026 19:08, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >>>> [*] In the GNU version of Awk - a much simpler but higher abstracted >>>> language - you can nicely compare strings, and even regexps. >>> >>> I have a narrow view of SWITCH, which is specifically for use with >>> integer values. That allows comparison of N unique possibilities >>> simultaneously, or in O(1) time. >>> So if you're comparing strings, then it is not SWITCH IMO, unless those >>> strings are perhaps interned. >> >> A CDC 175/176 carried a Pascal TEXT object in one machine word and >> could compare it as atom. Newer standard PC CPUs have more bits in >> a word than those former supercomputers. - But the point here was >> that internals should be abstracted by a higher level programming >> language. - And compilers have principally various possibilities to >> support some "atomization" of string comparisons with compile-time >> string constants. - As said, it would have been useful in many of >> my application cases. (No more, no less.) > > In C there are multi-character "characters". Details are implementation > defined, but AFAICS on 64-bit machine you can pack 8 bytes into single > machine word and use that in a switch. CDC used 6 bit characters, so > it could cram 10 characters into a single word. Corresponding comparison > of strings would execute as a single machine instruction. But AFAIK > Pascal did not allow to use strings in 'case' statement. That is absolutely correct; about the PACKED ARRAY [1..10] OF CHAR on these CDCs, and about what the Pascal language's CASE allowed per language definition, which was any enumerable type, and strings were, being arrays, not enumerable. I seem to recall that operations on the Pascal's TEXT type were not very elaborated, though. And assignments were possible for any type not restricted to primitive types or the TEXT type. My point was, as you also wrote, that there's possibilities to handle a short string at least as an atom for comparisons in principle (if the language definition allows that, if it's appropriately defined). > > In principle C compiler could generate matching code for strings, > basically if all cases correspond to short strings it could pack > characters into a single machine word and then reuse integer > case. For longer strings it could generate either tree of > comparisons (IIUC some sparse switches use this) or use hashing > to find correct case. That would be modest extention of current > switch (with sparse case labels one needs to handle most of it > anyway). I would guess that main counterargument to such a switch > is C++ compatibility: clearly C++ would want such things for classes > and it opens a can of worms. Yes, probably. - There's so many things you cannot do now, decades after the base of "C" has been defined. Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 10:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11afiji$286mm$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402952 |
On 2026-10-11 10:27, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 2026-10-11 10:00, Waldek Hebisch wrote: >> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> On 2026-10-10 22:09, bart wrote: >>>> On 10/10/2026 19:08, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >>>>> [*] In the GNU version of Awk - a much simpler but higher abstracted >>>>> language - you can nicely compare strings, and even regexps. >>>> >>>> I have a narrow view of SWITCH, which is specifically for use with >>>> integer values. That allows comparison of N unique possibilities >>>> simultaneously, or in O(1) time. >>>> So if you're comparing strings, then it is not SWITCH IMO, unless those >>>> strings are perhaps interned. >>> >>> A CDC 175/176 carried a Pascal TEXT object in one machine word and >>> could compare it as atom. Newer standard PC CPUs have more bits in >>> a word than those former supercomputers. - But the point here was >>> that internals should be abstracted by a higher level programming >>> language. - And compilers have principally various possibilities to >>> support some "atomization" of string comparisons with compile-time >>> string constants. - As said, it would have been useful in many of >>> my application cases. (No more, no less.) >> >> In C there are multi-character "characters". Details are implementation >> defined, but AFAICS on 64-bit machine you can pack 8 bytes into single >> machine word and use that in a switch. CDC used 6 bit characters, so >> it could cram 10 characters into a single word. Corresponding comparison >> of strings would execute as a single machine instruction. But AFAIK >> Pascal did not allow to use strings in 'case' statement. > > That is absolutely correct; about the PACKED ARRAY [1..10] OF CHAR > on these CDCs, and about what the Pascal language's CASE allowed > per language definition, which was any enumerable type, and strings > were, being arrays, not enumerable. I just looked it up in an old book; you could (in Pascal) also compare "strings" (PACKED ARRAY OF TEXT) by the six comparison operators (where other general array type objects needed an element-wise comparison). So you could at least compare strings of type TEXT directly with IF (and need no function, as in "C"). > > I seem to recall that operations on the Pascal's TEXT type were not > very elaborated, though. And assignments were possible for any type > not restricted to primitive types or the TEXT type. > > My point was, as you also wrote, that there's possibilities to handle > a short string at least as an atom for comparisons in principle (if > the language definition allows that, if it's appropriately defined). > >> >> In principle C compiler could generate matching code for strings, >> basically if all cases correspond to short strings it could pack >> characters into a single machine word and then reuse integer >> case. For longer strings it could generate either tree of >> comparisons (IIUC some sparse switches use this) or use hashing >> to find correct case. That would be modest extention of current >> switch (with sparse case labels one needs to handle most of it >> anyway). I would guess that main counterargument to such a switch >> is C++ compatibility: clearly C++ would want such things for classes >> and it opens a can of worms. > > Yes, probably. - There's so many things you cannot do now, decades > after the base of "C" has been defined. > > Janis >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-10 16:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11aehqg$24k8m$3@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #402873 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 10/10/2026 03:17, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> On 10/10/2026 01:25, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> For comparison, here is an example of Python’s match-statement. Like
>>>> all the good (i.e. non-C-based) designs, the designers saw no point in
>>>> having fall-through.
>>>
>>> C, doesn't specifically have fallthrough. It's just that C's switch is
>>> so bizarre, 'fallthrough' is a consequence of it being so dumb it
>>> doesn't know it's still inside a switch statement; it is just code
>>> that it carries ploughing through until it hits more control flow.
>>
>> C's switch statement is essentially a computed goto. It goes back
>> to BCPL (1967), which had different syntax (SWITCHON, CASE, ENDCASE)
>> but similar semantics. BCPL's predecessor, CPL, had a more explicit
>> computed goto that could be used in the same way; the target of a
>> "go to" could be a label expression.
>>
>> Think of C's "switch", not as an inferior version of Pascal's case
>> statement, but as an improved version of a computed goto.
>
> It's not that great as computed goto either. That tended to look like this:
>
> goto (L1, L2, L3) index
BCPL's "SWITCHON" is a more structured replacement for what was probably
(I'm speculating) a major use case for CPL's "go to expr".
[...]
> And, these days 'computed goto' in C tends to means something
> specific, which is a kind of looping switch but using multiple
> dispatch points (each break has its own goto *jumptable) rather the
> regular switch's one at the start).
Huh? "computed goto" is not a looping construct. But C doesn't
have computed goto, so I'm not going to discuss it here other than
in the context of how C's switch statement came to be.
[...]
> (Of, course, my language has it all:
Of course it does.
[...]
>> 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.
>
> I guess the same rationale means it is stuck with for(;;) loops?
Yes, of course it does. Did you think that a construct that's used in
most existing C programs could just be removed from the language?
> That hasn't stop C++ having a higher level version.
C is not C++. A future C could have additional looping constructs,
but I haven't seen any concrete proposals.
[...]
>> Anything you could do with a more structured switch-like statement can
>> be done, with just a little care, with the existing switch statement.
>
> With a LOT more care, and with too much flexibility making it too easy
> to get things wrong. You even have this:
No, with a little care.
> case 10: default: case 20:
Doctor, it hurts when I do this.
[...]
>> Yes, you have to remember to write "break;" at the end of each case.
>> I haven't seen any proposals to add such a feature -- probably
>> because nobody else is as angry about it as you are.
>
> I'm angry because it was SO EASY to get right in the first place
> (Algol68 and Pascal already existed), and nearly as easy to fix even
> within the intervening decades.
You're angry about a decision that was made in the 1960s and 1970s,
and you're whining about it to people who can't do anything about it.
That can't be good for you.
I've explained why it doesn't need fixing, and would not be easy to fix.
> It could also be easy to implement as structured switch can be
> syntactic sugar for an if-else-if chain.
If you want an if-else-if chain, write an if-else-if chain.
--
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 02:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11aenps$27sq7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402923 |
On 11/10/2026 00:30, Keith Thompson wrote:
> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> Huh? "computed goto" is not a looping construct.
You only hear about it in the context of interpreter dispatch loops.
>> (Of, course, my language has it all:
>
> Of course it does.
Well, it does; what more can I say.
>
> [...]
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I guess the same rationale means it is stuck with for(;;) loops?
>
> Yes, of course it does. Did you think that a construct that's used in
> most existing C programs could just be removed from the language?
I didn't say they should be removed.
>> case 10: default: case 20:
>
> Doctor, it hurts when I do this.
It illustrates having too much flexibility. Do compilers check for
nonsense like this?
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;'. But C already
has a rule for that and existing means to get around it.
I haven't put in provision for fall-through. If people want that, then
old switch will still work.
In this new statement, there is no special meaning for 'break'; it will
be part of any enclosing old switch or loop.
>> It could also be easy to implement as structured switch can be
>> syntactic sugar for an if-else-if chain.
>
> If you want an if-else-if chain, write an if-else-if chain.
Then why bother with switch at all?
An implementation HAS to support if-else, so I'm suggesting it wouldn't
be hard to implement structured switch, since lowering to if-else is one
easy option.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-10 19:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11aetqv$29hmu$1@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #402930 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 11/10/2026 00:30, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>> Huh? "computed goto" is not a looping construct.
>
> You only hear about it in the context of interpreter dispatch loops.
I hardly hear about it at all. I'm aware that it exists as a gcc
extension. I don't think I've ever used it. I see no point in
discussing it further.
>> [...]
>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I guess the same rationale means it is stuck with for(;;) loops?
>>
>> Yes, of course it does. Did you think that a construct that's used
>> in most existing C programs could just be removed from the language?
>
> I didn't say they should be removed.
So you want to add a new and less flexible looping construct on top
of the existing one, making the language more complicated with no
real additional expressive power. (C++'s for loops are a different
matter, sensible because iterators are such a big part of the C++
standard library.)
>>> case 10: default: case 20:
>>
>> Doctor, it hurts when I do this.
>
> It illustrates having too much flexibility. Do compilers check for
> nonsense like this?
I fundamentally disagree with your claim of "too much flexibility".
"case 10: default: case 20:" perfectly valid, syntactically and
semantically. It's also silly, and not something someone would
plausibly write other than to make a point. I see no reason for
compilers to go out of their way to do anything about it. It's
reasonable for a compiler to warn about plausible errors. Putting
"default:" in the middle of a set of cases isn't a plausible
error, and I'm fine with the compiler not wasting its time with a
special warning. (I'd also be fine with a compiler warning about it.)
> Having proper structure must make code analysis simpler than
> effectively having a bunch of case labels randomly scattered through
> the code.
Not really. A reasonably clever compiler or other tool can easily
recognize a typical switch statement where each sequence of case or
default labels is followed by a "break". Code analysis becomes a little
more difficult when that pattern is broken by any of several means:
fallthrough, goto, return, continue.
> Example:
[snip]
[...]
>>> It could also be easy to implement as structured switch can be
>>> syntactic sugar for an if-else-if chain.
>>
>> If you want an if-else-if chain, write an if-else-if chain.
>
> Then why bother with switch at all?
It expresses a common pattern. It can, especially with older compilers,
result in more efficient code (a jump table) that an if/else chain
cannot directly express. It lets the expression be written and
evaluated just once. It makes the compiler diagnose the error of
specifying the same value more than once. It is as expressive as the
more restrictive case statement seen in Pascal and other languages.
It's what we have in the language. Nobody suggests that it's ideal
or perfect.
Or we could drop every control structure other than "if" and "goto".
> An implementation HAS to support if-else, so I'm suggesting it
> wouldn't be hard to implement structured switch, since lowering to
> if-else is one easy option.
How would your "structured switch" differ from the current switch
statement? Would the lack of fallthrough be the only difference?
Would the case expressions still have to be constant? Would you
allow duplicate values? Would you allow non-integer types, perhaps
with user-defined comparisons? These are all rhetorical questions,
intended merely to point out that this is not as simple as you seem
to think it is.
Would it add *any* real expressive power to a language that you
hold in contempt anyway?
Sure, we could add every feature that's not too hard to implement.
The end result would be a huge mess.
--
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 11:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11afj78$286mm$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402937 |
On 2026-10-11 04:55, Keith Thompson wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> [...] > > Or we could drop every control structure other than "if" and "goto". Even 'goto' is redundant if we program in a functional programming way. *evil grin* ;-) Janis > [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 12:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11afrfq$2j2o6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402937 |
On 11/10/2026 03:55, Keith Thompson wrote:
> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> On 11/10/2026 00:30, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>
>>> Huh? "computed goto" is not a looping construct.
>>
>> You only hear about it in the context of interpreter dispatch loops.
>>> Yes, of course it does. Did you think that a construct that's used
>>> in most existing C programs could just be removed from the language?
>>
>> I didn't say they should be removed.
>
> So you want to add a new and less flexible looping construct on top
> of the existing one,
So how would you do it: remove existing switch completely and replace
with the new version?
Obviously new and old will have to co-exist. This could have been done
decades ago and the old switch deprecated by now.
> making the language more complicated with no
> real additional expressive power.
It's already getting more complicated.
>> It illustrates having too much flexibility. Do compilers check for
>> nonsense like this?
>
> I fundamentally disagree with your claim of "too much flexibility".
So what more flexibility do you think switch could have: working across
functions?
> "case 10: default: case 20:" perfectly valid, syntactically and
> semantically. It's also silly, and not something someone would
> plausibly write other than to make a point. I see no reason for
> compilers to go out of their way to do anything about it.
It is nonsense, akin to writing this:
if (cond) {
s1;
else
s2;
}
where the else branch is in the middle of the true branch. Is it
possible that people truly don't realise how utterly bizarre C switch is?
Or if they do, it is astounding that they just shrug it off.
> Not really. A reasonably clever compiler or other tool can easily
> recognize a typical switch statement where each sequence of case or
> default labels is followed by a "break". Code analysis becomes a little
> more difficult when that pattern is broken by any of several means:
> fallthrough, goto, return, continue.
See the example in my last post replying to David Brown. What
control-flow analysis would a compiler make of that?
>> Example:
> [snip]
I see you're not very receptive of it.
>
> [...]
>
>>>> It could also be easy to implement as structured switch can be
>>>> syntactic sugar for an if-else-if chain.
>>>
>>> If you want an if-else-if chain, write an if-else-if chain.
>>
>> Then why bother with switch at all?
>
> It expresses a common pattern.
A common pattern where one of N blocks of code is executed according to
some control expression.
But that's not what C switch does: it jumps to one of N random labels
anywhere inside any statement of any complexity and depth.
Those N blocks can overlap. Or after executing one block, it just
carries on into the next unless stopped via 'break'.
Often one of these N will be an exception (default) but in C that can be
shared with of the other blocks.
Is this the common pattern you're talking about; total chaos?
> It can, especially with older compilers,
> result in more efficient code (a jump table) that an if/else chain
> cannot directly express. It lets the expression be written and
> evaluated just once. It makes the compiler diagnose the error of
> specifying the same value more than once. It is as expressive as the
> more restrictive case statement seen in Pascal and other languages.
It's an emulation of it but with few guardrails.
> How would your "structured switch" differ from the current switch
> statement? Would the lack of fallthrough be the only difference?
> Would the case expressions still have to be constant? Would you
> allow duplicate values? Would you allow non-integer types, perhaps
> with user-defined comparisons? These are all rhetorical questions,
> intended merely to point out that this is not as simple as you seem
> to think it is.
Yes it is simple:
* The control expression is an integer
* Case values are constants, and must be unique
* The only comparison is a nominal ==
But it implements that common pattern properly as explained above.
The fall-through question doesn't arise, any more than it does in if-else.
>
> Would it add *any* real expressive power to a language that you
> hold in contempt anyway?
It provides more safety and more confidence that no weird stuff is going
on, and confidence that it is properly implementing the common pattern.
> Sure, we could add every feature that's not too hard to implement.
> The end result would be a huge mess.
Then it would be right at home! This is fixing something that should
long ago have been taken out and shot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 14:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11agtkb$30q22$1@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #402974 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 11/10/2026 03:55, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> On 11/10/2026 00:30, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Huh? "computed goto" is not a looping construct.
>>>
>>> You only hear about it in the context of interpreter dispatch loops.
>
>>>> Yes, of course it does. Did you think that a construct that's used
>>>> in most existing C programs could just be removed from the language?
>>>
>>> I didn't say they should be removed.
>> So you want to add a new and less flexible looping construct on top
>> of the existing one,
>
> So how would you do it: remove existing switch completely and replace
> with the new version?
No, I'd leave it alone.
C's switch statement is, like C as a whole, "quirky, flawed, and
an enormous success" (Dennis Ritchie said that).
You want to add a new construct that differs from switch only in
that it doesn't have implicit fallthrough. You think the existence
of fallthrough behavior, or of any flexibility that you see as
excessive, is a problem that needs to be fixed. I don't.
C's switch statement is *almost always* used to implement the same
patterns that can be implemented using Pascal's case statement.
(A minor difference is case ranges, which are proposed for C2y.)
You want to add a "newswitch" construct (presumably with a better
name) that's just like "switch" except that there's no fallthrough.
It would add no real expressive power. (I'm tempted to propose
calling it "static switch". To be clear, that's a joke.)
C already has such a construct, called "switch and don't forget to
write break after each case". There are existing tools that help
with that.
Would it have been better if C's switch statement had behaved
like your "newswitch"? Yeah, probably. If I were inventing a new
language, I probably wouldn't copy that particular design decision
from C. Fallthrough *is* useful sometimes, so I'd probably suggest
adding a "fallthrough" keyword.
But the existing switch statement is good enough, and the cost of
"fixing" it would be much higher than the minimal benefits.
--
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 23:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11ah16h$320sj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403002 |
On 11/10/2026 22:04, Keith Thompson wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 11/10/2026 03:55, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>> On 11/10/2026 00:30, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> Huh? "computed goto" is not a looping construct. >>>> >>>> You only hear about it in the context of interpreter dispatch loops. >> >>>>> Yes, of course it does. Did you think that a construct that's used >>>>> in most existing C programs could just be removed from the language? >>>> >>>> I didn't say they should be removed. >>> So you want to add a new and less flexible looping construct on top >>> of the existing one, >> >> So how would you do it: remove existing switch completely and replace >> with the new version? > > No, I'd leave it alone. > > C's switch statement is, like C as a whole, "quirky, flawed, and > an enormous success" (Dennis Ritchie said that). Yeah, like anyone had a choice in the matter! > You want to add a new construct that differs from switch only in > that it doesn't have implicit fallthrough. You think the existence > of fallthrough behavior, or of any flexibility that you see as > excessive, is a problem that needs to be fixed. I don't. So you don't really get it. That's fine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web