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 382 — 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 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 12:48 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-18 12:04 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 14:09 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-18 14:34 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 17:13 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 16:52 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 18:16 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 20:47 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 22:38 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-19 11:16 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 03:50 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-19 12:59 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-19 14:35 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 18:34 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-18 17:49 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-18 22:18 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-18 23:51 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-19 01:56 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 19:37 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-18 23:56 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 16:15 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 18:33 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-18 13:39 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-18 22:33 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-17 19:39 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-17 18:23 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-17 17:36 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-17 21:03 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-17 10:30 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-17 10:54 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 14:18 +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 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 12:38 +0200
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> - 2026-10-17 19:25 -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 gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-17 11:09 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-17 13:11 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-17 15:15 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-17 08:34 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-17 03:19 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-17 12:34 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-17 17:58 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-17 21:40 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 14:32 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-19 01:19 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-19 09:18 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-19 12:00 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-19 12:47 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-19 14:08 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 13:22 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-18 14:12 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-18 14:33 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 16:27 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-18 17:09 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 21:09 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-18 23:20 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-19 12:26 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:16 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-19 15:46 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 16:03 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-19 08:46 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-19 15:00 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 17:24 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 16:58 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 18:26 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-18 18:11 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 19:32 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:44 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-18 21:11 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-18 18:34 +0100
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 9 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 20 Next page →
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 18:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11b3s3a$1lao8$2@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #403279 |
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
[...]
> All I wanted to say is that I prefer label to be located at where the
> break goes. Or near this point. Within frame of current C syntax, I
> don't see how to achieve it, except for do-while. But it does not
> change the fact that I find it desirable.
There is a way to achieve it: "goto".
[...]
--
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 | 2026-10-18 17:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11b2pq5$3pvda$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403270 |
On 2026-10-18 16:13, Michael S wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 14:34:28 +0200
> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2026-10-18 14:09, David Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> [...] (I don't know why N3377 proposed "do { } while NAME ( )"
>>> rather than "do NAME { } while ( )". )
>>
>> Oh! - I can only think that it would then be (sort of) "consistent"
>> with the place of the label attacked in a 'while' loop; i.e. behind
>> the 'while' keyword. - It's inconsistent in another interpretation,
>> though; and I'd certainly have favored the latter form, to have the
>> label consistently attached at the loop-entry keyword.
>
> I'd prefer label consistently attached to the loop-exit keyword.
I can see that this might look appealing in case of 'break'. In
case of the same mechanism working also for 'continue' I'd then
think that it should generally better be an "attribute" of the
loop entry keyword, i.e. placed where loops start. (But that's
just my opinion.) Having it at a different place with a do-loop
I consider a really bad decision. It's advantageous to know the
direction in which to seek for the label if you inspect code. -
But okay, it's "C"; I won't heat up about some future C-release
that I'll never use (especially given that I'm not even be using
all of those more recent additions that are already available).
> Unfortunately, for() and while() loops have no such keyword.
Or fortunately. ;-)
Janis
> [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 22:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11b3gkj$mt2$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #403281 |
In article <11b2pq5$3pvda$7@dont-email.me>,
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 2026-10-18 16:13, Michael S wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 14:34:28 +0200
>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2026-10-18 14:09, David Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...] (I don't know why N3377 proposed "do { } while NAME ( )"
>>>> rather than "do NAME { } while ( )". )
>>>
>>> Oh! - I can only think that it would then be (sort of) "consistent"
>>> with the place of the label attacked in a 'while' loop; i.e. behind
>>> the 'while' keyword. - It's inconsistent in another interpretation,
>>> though; and I'd certainly have favored the latter form, to have the
>>> label consistently attached at the loop-entry keyword.
>>
>> I'd prefer label consistently attached to the loop-exit keyword.
>
>I can see that this might look appealing in case of 'break'. In
>case of the same mechanism working also for 'continue' I'd then
>think that it should generally better be an "attribute" of the
>loop entry keyword, i.e. placed where loops start. (But that's
>just my opinion.) Having it at a different place with a do-loop
>I consider a really bad decision. It's advantageous to know the
>direction in which to seek for the label if you inspect code. -
>But okay, it's "C"; I won't heat up about some future C-release
>that I'll never use (especially given that I'm not even be using
>all of those more recent additions that are already available).
I think colocating it with `do` might create a syntactic
ambiguity. In the case of `for`, `while`, and `select`, there
is a required token following the keyword (the `(`). However,
for a `do`/`while` loop, `do` is followed immediately by a,
`secondary-block` production. In particular, you do not _need_
braces to denote a compound statement after `do`; something like
`do i++; while (i < j);` is perfectly legal in C.
In the N3377 proposal, the new `block-name` is just an
identifier. If it were allowed immediately after the `do`, then
given, `do NAME statement; while(condition);` you can't tell
`NAME` from the name of the loop and a random identifier before
a statement; something like `do LOOP i++; while (i < j);`
appears as though it _would_ be be syntactically valid by N3377
as presently worked, but is the programmer's intent to create a
loop name, or should this just be a syntax error?
By requiring the block-name between a keyword and a
syntactically required `(`, you remove that ambiguity: if there
is an identifier there, then it is a `block-name`; if not, then
the block has no name.
- Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 23:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11b3m1r$3tp6p$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #403295 |
Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
> In article <11b2pq5$3pvda$7@dont-email.me>,
> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On 2026-10-18 16:13, Michael S wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 14:34:28 +0200
>>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2026-10-18 14:09, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]Â (I don't know why N3377 proposed "do { } while NAME ( )"
>>>>> rather than "do NAME { } while ( )". )
>>>>
>>>> Oh! - I can only think that it would then be (sort of) "consistent"
>>>> with the place of the label attacked in a 'while' loop; i.e. behind
>>>> the 'while' keyword. - It's inconsistent in another interpretation,
>>>> though; and I'd certainly have favored the latter form, to have the
>>>> label consistently attached at the loop-entry keyword.
>>>
>>> I'd prefer label consistently attached to the loop-exit keyword.
>>
>>I can see that this might look appealing in case of 'break'. In
>>case of the same mechanism working also for 'continue' I'd then
>>think that it should generally better be an "attribute" of the
>>loop entry keyword, i.e. placed where loops start. (But that's
>>just my opinion.) Having it at a different place with a do-loop
>>I consider a really bad decision. It's advantageous to know the
>>direction in which to seek for the label if you inspect code. -
>>But okay, it's "C"; I won't heat up about some future C-release
>>that I'll never use (especially given that I'm not even be using
>>all of those more recent additions that are already available).
>
> I think colocating it with `do` might create a syntactic
> ambiguity. In the case of `for`, `while`, and `select`, there
> is a required token following the keyword (the `(`). However,
> for a `do`/`while` loop, `do` is followed immediately by a,
> `secondary-block` production. In particular, you do not _need_
> braces to denote a compound statement after `do`; something like
> `do i++; while (i < j);` is perfectly legal in C.
>
> In the N3377 proposal, the new `block-name` is just an
> identifier. If it were allowed immediately after the `do`, then
> given, `do NAME statement; while(condition);` you can't tell
> `NAME` from the name of the loop and a random identifier before
> a statement; something like `do LOOP i++; while (i < j);`
> appears as though it _would_ be be syntactically valid by N3377
> as presently worked, but is the programmer's intent to create a
> loop name, or should this just be a syntax error?
>
> By requiring the block-name between a keyword and a
> syntactically required `(`, you remove that ambiguity: if there
> is an identifier there, then it is a `block-name`; if not, then
> the block has no name.
AFAICS this is worse, both:
do (i++); while (i < j);
and
do LOOP(i++); while (i < j);
are currently legal (assuming that 'LOOP' is a function).
Writing statement with parentheses may look silly, but such code
may be easily produced due to use of macros.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-19 01:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11b3tc5$1lgro$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403299 |
On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 23:51:25 -0000 (UTC), Waldek Hebisch wrote: > Writing statement with parentheses may look silly, but such code may > be easily produced due to use of macros. Why do you need to distinguish between “statements” and “expressions”, anyway? By the way, the precursor of C, BCPL, allowed statement sequences inside expressions. For some reason this got dropped from C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 19:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11b3vpg$1md9i$1@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #403304 |
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 23:51:25 -0000 (UTC), Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>> Writing statement with parentheses may look silly, but such code may
>> be easily produced due to use of macros.
>
> Why do you need to distinguish between “statements” and “expressions”,
> anyway?
Because C strongly distinguishes between statements and expressions.
If you don't want to make that distinction, you'll need to use a
different language.
(The context was that a suggested change to C would be syntactically
ambiguous.)
> By the way, the precursor of C, BCPL, allowed statement sequences
> inside expressions. For some reason this got dropped from C.
Yes.
There is a proposal to add statement expressions to C, based on
the existing gcc extension. This is not reflected in the latest
C2y draft.
Note that statements and expressions are still distinct. An
expression statement can be formed from an expression by adding
a semicolon. A statement expression (given the extension) can be
formed from a compound statement by adding parentheses.
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3643.htm
--
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 | 2026-10-18 23:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11b3mbv$3qr$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #403295 |
In article <11b3gkj$mt2$1@reader2.panix.com>,
Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>In article <11b2pq5$3pvda$7@dont-email.me>,
>Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On 2026-10-18 16:13, Michael S wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 14:34:28 +0200
>>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2026-10-18 14:09, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...] (I don't know why N3377 proposed "do { } while NAME ( )"
>>>>> rather than "do NAME { } while ( )". )
>>>>
>>>> Oh! - I can only think that it would then be (sort of) "consistent"
>>>> with the place of the label attacked in a 'while' loop; i.e. behind
>>>> the 'while' keyword. - It's inconsistent in another interpretation,
>>>> though; and I'd certainly have favored the latter form, to have the
>>>> label consistently attached at the loop-entry keyword.
>>>
>>> I'd prefer label consistently attached to the loop-exit keyword.
>>
>>I can see that this might look appealing in case of 'break'. In
>>case of the same mechanism working also for 'continue' I'd then
>>think that it should generally better be an "attribute" of the
>>loop entry keyword, i.e. placed where loops start. (But that's
>>just my opinion.) Having it at a different place with a do-loop
>>I consider a really bad decision. It's advantageous to know the
>>direction in which to seek for the label if you inspect code. -
>>But okay, it's "C"; I won't heat up about some future C-release
>>that I'll never use (especially given that I'm not even be using
>>all of those more recent additions that are already available).
>
>I think colocating it with `do` might create a syntactic
>ambiguity. In the case of `for`, `while`, and `select`, there
>is a required token following the keyword (the `(`). However,
>for a `do`/`while` loop, `do` is followed immediately by a,
>`secondary-block` production. In particular, you do not _need_
>braces to denote a compound statement after `do`; something like
>`do i++; while (i < j);` is perfectly legal in C.
Rather, you _would_ need braces for a _compound statement_, but
a compound statement is not required here.
>In the N3377 proposal, the new `block-name` is just an
>identifier. If it were allowed immediately after the `do`, then
>given, `do NAME statement; while(condition);` you can't tell
>`NAME` from the name of the loop and a random identifier before
>a statement; something like `do LOOP i++; while (i < j);`
>appears as though it _would_ be be syntactically valid by N3377
>as presently worked, but is the programmer's intent to create a
>loop name, or should this just be a syntax error?
>
>By requiring the block-name between a keyword and a
>syntactically required `(`, you remove that ambiguity: if there
>is an identifier there, then it is a `block-name`; if not, then
>the block has no name.
- Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-19 16:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11b58md$1kr9u$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403295 |
On 2026-10-19 00:18, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <11b2pq5$3pvda$7@dont-email.me>,
> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2026-10-18 16:13, Michael S wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 14:34:28 +0200
>>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2026-10-18 14:09, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...] (I don't know why N3377 proposed "do { } while NAME ( )"
>>>>> rather than "do NAME { } while ( )". )
>>>>
>>>> Oh! - I can only think that it would then be (sort of) "consistent"
>>>> with the place of the label attacked in a 'while' loop; i.e. behind
>>>> the 'while' keyword. - It's inconsistent in another interpretation,
>>>> though; and I'd certainly have favored the latter form, to have the
>>>> label consistently attached at the loop-entry keyword.
>>>
>>> I'd prefer label consistently attached to the loop-exit keyword.
>>
>> I can see that this might look appealing in case of 'break'. In
>> case of the same mechanism working also for 'continue' I'd then
>> think that it should generally better be an "attribute" of the
>> loop entry keyword, i.e. placed where loops start. [...]
>
> I think colocating it with `do` might create a syntactic
> ambiguity. In the case of `for`, `while`, and `select`, there
> is a required token following the keyword (the `(`). However,
> for a `do`/`while` loop, `do` is followed immediately by a,
> `secondary-block` production.
Good point!
> In particular, you do not _need_
> braces to denote a compound statement after `do`; something like
> `do i++; while (i < j);` is perfectly legal in C.
Yes.
>
> In the N3377 proposal, the new `block-name` is just an
> identifier. If it were allowed immediately after the `do`, then
> given, `do NAME statement; while(condition);` you can't tell
> `NAME` from the name of the loop and a random identifier before
> a statement; something like `do LOOP i++; while (i < j);`
> appears as though it _would_ be be syntactically valid by N3377
> as presently worked, but is the programmer's intent to create a
> loop name, or should this just be a syntax error?
>
> By requiring the block-name between a keyword and a
> syntactically required `(`, you remove that ambiguity: if there
> is an identifier there, then it is a `block-name`; if not, then
> the block has no name.
Thanks for your elaborations.
Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 18:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11b3s0v$1lao8$1@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #403270 |
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 14:34:28 +0200
> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2026-10-18 14:09, David Brown wrote:
>> >
>> > [...] (I don't know why N3377 proposed "do { } while NAME ( )"
>> > rather than "do NAME { } while ( )". )
>>
>> Oh! - I can only think that it would then be (sort of) "consistent"
>> with the place of the label attacked in a 'while' loop; i.e. behind
>> the 'while' keyword. - It's inconsistent in another interpretation,
>> though; and I'd certainly have favored the latter form, to have the
>> label consistently attached at the loop-entry keyword.
>
> I'd prefer label consistently attached to the loop-exit keyword.
> Unfortunately, for() and while() loops have no such keyword.
I see your point, but I disagree.
Let's say we have a language where the end of a loop is marked by a
keyword.
WHILE condition
statement;
statement;
ENDWHILE;
Now we want to add the ability to break out of a specified loop,
possibly from within a nested construct. With your preference:
WHILE condition
statement;
if (error) break OUTER; ENDIF;
statement;
OUTER: ENDWHILE;
Putting the label at the bottom of the loop does show more clearly
the point in the code to which the "break" transfers control. In my
opinion, that's not a good thing.
With the label name at the top:
OUTER:
WHILE condition
statement;
if (error) break OUTER; ENDIF;
statement;
ENDWHILE;
"OUTER" is *the name of the loop*, and the entire loop is the
construct to which "break OUTER" applies.
If the syntax emphasizes the point to which the break jumps, I
don't see much advantage over goto.
--
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 | 2026-10-18 13:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11b2b6e$3pvda$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403254 |
On 2026-10-18 12:48, David Brown wrote:
> On 17/10/2026 01:29, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> On 2026-10-17 00:00, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> There's a proposal for C2y to use goto labels as loop names, and a
>>>>> competing one to define a new syntax like "for NAME (;;)" :
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> I'm not particularly a fan of multi-level break/continue. But if
>>>> we're going to have one of these, the second ("for NAME (;;)") is
>>>> unquestionably better.
>>>
>>> Unquestionably? Why?
>>
>> Why would one question an opinion? ;-)
>
> Time didn't word it as a personal opinion - he made it clear that he
> doesn't think anyone else could have a different opinion.
You've noticed my smiley? (There was no need for an explanation.)
>
> The C standards committee collectively reached an agreement counter to
> Tim's thoughts, so clearly his preferred variant is /not/ unquestionably
> better.
"C" is "C", and Tim is Tim. (And we know both sufficiently.) :-)
>
>>
>>>
>>> I do like the fact that it doesn't conflate goto labels with loop
>>> names, but I still prefer the "NAME: for (;;)" form, partly because
>>> it's consistent with several other languages.
>>
>> I've no strong opinion on that, but I find the "for NAME (;;)" to
>> clearer express the _local scope_ of embedded breaks or continues.
>> (Just a matter of taste, and my appreciation for locality.)
>>
(I interpret your following explanations as additional information.)
> A main objection to "name: for ..." is that with function-scope labels,
> you need a new name for every labelled loop or switch. That may be an
> inconvenience, especially for macro with labelled loops, or for copy-
> and-paste code. There is a proposal to deal with that which basically
> says :
>
> 1. Any "break label;" or "continue label;" refers to the innermost
> containing loop or switch with that label.
>
> 2. Any "label" used in "goto label;" must be unique in the function.
>
> Those rules give a simple and intuitive fix without affecting existing
> code.
Yes.
>
> Beyond that, "name: for ..." or "for name ..." is, as you say, mostly a
> matter of taste. (There are proposals for both versions, and you can
> look them up to see the arguments.)
Thanks. I'm interested, but (given what I think about it) not that
much. :-)
>
>>
>> As far as I recall, in "C", the name of the function was often put
>> separately (first in the line) to have an easy method to find its
>> declaration by simple "grep ^fname". (With any sophisticated editor
>> this might be a weak argument, though.)
>>
>
> I think it was popularised with a shortcut in emacs.
Well, I don't know what Emacs supports, or what it doesn't support so
that it requires some workaround, or shortcut, or explicit help from
the programmers concerning the layout.
I was using Vi for decades and with a search command ('/') you can do
a regexp '/^fname' to find fname at the start of a line. But there's
also "ctags" that can be used to facilitate that (and more). Recently
(i.e. since 25+ years) I'm using Vim where there's additional facilities
like the commands 'gd' (and 'gD') to jump to the local (and "global")
declaration of an entity; the latter don't require a tags-database or
any specific source code formatting to find the names.
Personally I've never followed the function-type-on-an-own-line style.
Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 22:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11b3hfo$8vk$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #403254 |
In article <11b285v$121v2$2@dont-email.me>,
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>On 17/10/2026 01:29, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> On 2026-10-17 00:00, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> There's a proposal for C2y to use goto labels as loop names, and a
>>>>> competing one to define a new syntax like "for NAME (;;)" :
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> I'm not particularly a fan of multi-level break/continue. But if
>>>> we're going to have one of these, the second ("for NAME (;;)") is
>>>> unquestionably better.
>>>
>>> Unquestionably? Why?
>>
>> Why would one question an opinion? ;-)
>
>Time didn't word it as a personal opinion - he made it clear that he
>doesn't think anyone else could have a different opinion.
Tim often makes it sound as though he believes that his opinions
are facts.
>> As far as I recall, in "C", the name of the function was often put
>> separately (first in the line) to have an easy method to find its
>> declaration by simple "grep ^fname". (With any sophisticated editor
>> this might be a weak argument, though.)
>
>I think it was popularised with a shortcut in emacs.
No, it was `grep`. The convention originated on Unix, but well
before there was a version of Emacs in widespread use on those
systems; most Unix programmers were using `ed` at the time, and
`vi` was still a few years away; `ctags` was not a thing yet.
Recall that early versions of C defaulted to `int` as a return
type if otherwise unspecified; there was no `void`, so if a
programmer had no intention of returning anything at all, they
would just omit the return type and the `return` statement. The
result was that there were many functions that declared no
return type, and just started with the function at the beginning
of the line; it was natural to use `grep ^name` to look for
those, and it was sufficiently useful that the convention stuck
even as we gained both more powerful editors and more stricter
versions of C.
- Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 19:39 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20261017193908.00000106@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #403224 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 15:00:27 -0700
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> > Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
> >> I find "break NAME;", where "NAME" is the name of an enclosing
> >> construct, unambiguously better than "break N;", where N is the
> >> number of levels to break out of. [...]
> >
> > Definitely.
> >
> >> There's a proposal for C2y to use goto labels as loop names, and a
> >> competing one to define a new syntax like "for NAME (;;)" :
> >>
> >> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3355.htm
> >> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3377.pdf
> >
> > I'm not particularly a fan of multi-level break/continue. But if
> > we're going to have one of these, the second ("for NAME (;;)") is
> > unquestionably better.
>
> Unquestionably? Why?
>
I don't know why Tim prefers it.
I prefer it (strongly) because it is different from regular label. So
reader that wants to understand a flow of the program should not be
concerned with possibility of jumping to it from places outside for().
> I do like the fact that it doesn't conflate goto labels with loop
> names, but I still prefer the "NAME: for (;;)" form, partly because
> it's consistent with several other languages.
>
You mentioned itself that in Ada loop labels are distinct from regular
labels. I would think that Ada alone easily outweighs "several other
languages" if we compare by number (and likely by quality) of man-hours
invested into thinking and discussion of syntactic features.
Anyway I value appeal to success more than appeal to authority so by my
own standards the argument above is weak.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 18:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11b0av3$edsd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403239 |
On 17/10/2026 17:39, Michael S wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 15:00:27 -0700
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> I find "break NAME;", where "NAME" is the name of an enclosing
>>>> construct, unambiguously better than "break N;", where N is the
>>>> number of levels to break out of. [...]
>>>
>>> Definitely.
>>>
>>>> There's a proposal for C2y to use goto labels as loop names, and a
>>>> competing one to define a new syntax like "for NAME (;;)" :
>>>>
>>>> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3355.htm
>>>> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3377.pdf
>>>
>>> I'm not particularly a fan of multi-level break/continue. But if
>>> we're going to have one of these, the second ("for NAME (;;)") is
>>> unquestionably better.
>>
>> Unquestionably? Why?
>>
>
> I don't know why Tim prefers it.
> I prefer it (strongly) because it is different from regular label. So
> reader that wants to understand a flow of the program should not be
> concerned with possibility of jumping to it from places outside for().
>
>> I do like the fact that it doesn't conflate goto labels with loop
>> names, but I still prefer the "NAME: for (;;)" form, partly because
>> it's consistent with several other languages.
>>
>
> You mentioned itself that in Ada loop labels are distinct from regular
> labels. I would think that Ada alone easily outweighs "several other
> languages" if we compare by number (and likely by quality) of man-hours
> invested into thinking and discussion of syntactic features.
> Anyway I value appeal to success more than appeal to authority so by my
> own standards the argument above is weak.
I was around when Ada was being developed and refined, a process that
took years.
By contrast, C looks like it was just thrown together with little
thought, and probably that is exactly what happened.
In the end, Ada was a language that you could admire, but you'd rather
other people used. It's a solid language but I found it too formal and
rather dull (not that it was available for me to use).
Still, I borrowed some syntactic features from it.
One interesting fact that people might forget is that it was
case-insensitive, a welcome difference IMV.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 17:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11b0bn8$cq8$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #403240 |
In article <11b0av3$edsd$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >[snip] >I was around when Ada was being developed and refined, a process that >took years. > >By contrast, C looks like it was just thrown together with little >thought, and probably that is exactly what happened. >[snip] Oh put a sock in it, guy. No one here slavishly worships C or thinks it is perfect, but taking every little chance you can to throw barbs at it with otherwise utterly information-free posts like this, is merely noise. Honestly, the constant "notice me, senpai!" posts are just pathetic attention-seeking. - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 21:03 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20261017210359.00003dff@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #403240 |
On Sat, 17 Oct 2026 18:23:47 +0100
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> On 17/10/2026 17:39, Michael S wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 15:00:27 -0700
> > Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> >>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>> I find "break NAME;", where "NAME" is the name of an enclosing
> >>>> construct, unambiguously better than "break N;", where N is the
> >>>> number of levels to break out of. [...]
> >>>
> >>> Definitely.
> >>>
> >>>> There's a proposal for C2y to use goto labels as loop names, and
> >>>> a competing one to define a new syntax like "for NAME (;;)" :
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3355.htm
> >>>> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3377.pdf
> >>>
> >>> I'm not particularly a fan of multi-level break/continue. But if
> >>> we're going to have one of these, the second ("for NAME (;;)") is
> >>> unquestionably better.
> >>
> >> Unquestionably? Why?
> >>
> >
> > I don't know why Tim prefers it.
> > I prefer it (strongly) because it is different from regular label.
> > So reader that wants to understand a flow of the program should not
> > be concerned with possibility of jumping to it from places outside
> > for().
> >> I do like the fact that it doesn't conflate goto labels with loop
> >> names, but I still prefer the "NAME: for (;;)" form, partly because
> >> it's consistent with several other languages.
> >>
> >
> > You mentioned itself that in Ada loop labels are distinct from
> > regular labels. I would think that Ada alone easily outweighs
> > "several other languages" if we compare by number (and likely by
> > quality) of man-hours invested into thinking and discussion of
> > syntactic features. Anyway I value appeal to success more than
> > appeal to authority so by my own standards the argument above is
> > weak.
>
> I was around when Ada was being developed and refined, a process that
> took years.
>
> By contrast, C looks like it was just thrown together with little
> thought, and probably that is exactly what happened.
>
> In the end, Ada was a language that you could admire, but you'd
> rather other people used. It's a solid language but I found it too
> formal and rather dull (not that it was available for me to use).
>
I use Ada off-spring VHDL very regularly.
I prefer it over Verilog, but I do it due to semantics and mostly
despite [inherited from Ada] syntax.
> Still, I borrowed some syntactic features from it.
>
> One interesting fact that people might forget is that it was
> case-insensitive, a welcome difference IMV.
>
I don't like case-insensitivity, except, may be, for keywords.
I don't like begin..end.
Most of all, I don't like nested procedures that have visibility of
local variables of the parent (That's related to Ada, not significant
in context of VHDL).
I suppose, I don't like most of the thing that you like about
programming languages.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 10:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <868q3wp748.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #403224 |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>
>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> I find "break NAME;", where "NAME" is the name of an enclosing
>>> construct, unambiguously better than "break N;", where N is the
>>> number of levels to break out of. [...]
>>
>> Definitely.
>>
>>> There's a proposal for C2y to use goto labels as loop names, and a
>>> competing one to define a new syntax like "for NAME (;;)" :
>>>
>>> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3355.htm
>>> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3377.pdf
>>
>> I'm not particularly a fan of multi-level break/continue. But if
>> we're going to have one of these, the second ("for NAME (;;)") is
>> unquestionably better.
>
> Unquestionably? Why?
Before I respond I'd like to ask you to list as many potential
differentiators as you can think of, without regard to which of
the two suggestions each one benefits, and without saying which
ones you think favor one choice or the other. If you do that I
can try to go through your list, say which ones I think are
significant, which of the two choices each one favors, and maybe
also assign some sort of priority ranking. Also that would give
me a chance to think about whether there are other differentiators
not on your list but that could seem to me to be relevant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 10:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11b0coc$f6tl$2@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #403241 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> I find "break NAME;", where "NAME" is the name of an enclosing
>>>> construct, unambiguously better than "break N;", where N is the
>>>> number of levels to break out of. [...]
>>>
>>> Definitely.
>>>
>>>> There's a proposal for C2y to use goto labels as loop names, and a
>>>> competing one to define a new syntax like "for NAME (;;)" :
>>>>
>>>> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3355.htm
>>>> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3377.pdf
>>>
>>> I'm not particularly a fan of multi-level break/continue. But if
>>> we're going to have one of these, the second ("for NAME (;;)") is
>>> unquestionably better.
>>
>> Unquestionably? Why?
>
> Before I respond I'd like to ask you to list as many potential
> differentiators as you can think of, without regard to which of
> the two suggestions each one benefits, and without saying which
> ones you think favor one choice or the other. If you do that I
> can try to go through your list, say which ones I think are
> significant, which of the two choices each one favors, and maybe
> also assign some sort of priority ranking. Also that would give
> me a chance to think about whether there are other differentiators
> not on your list but that could seem to me to be relevant.
No, Tim, I absolutely will not do that.
I asked you to explain two words that you wrote. You do not get to
assign me homework as a precondition for answering a simple question.
You asserted that it's "unquestionably better". You can support
that assertion or not. If you're not going to answer my question,
an easier way to do that is to remain silent. I'm used to that
from you.
To be blunt, I don't care enough about your opinion to do extra
work to extract it from you.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 14:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11b2de0$141vj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403221 |
On 16/10/2026 23:22, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I find "break NAME;", where "NAME" is the name of an enclosing
>> construct, unambiguously better than "break N;", where N is the
>> number of levels to break out of. [...]
>
> Definitely.
>
>> There's a proposal for C2y to use goto labels as loop names, and a
>> competing one to define a new syntax like "for NAME (;;)" :
>>
>> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3355.htm
>> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3377.pdf
>
> I'm not particularly a fan of multi-level break/continue. But if
> we're going to have one of these, the second ("for NAME (;;)") is
> unquestionably better.
Given the number of questions asked, the various proposals for labelled
break and continue in both C and C++, and the fact that the C standards
committee have already chosen "name: for (...)" as their syntax, you are
unquestionably wrong to say that the second form is "unquestionably
better". Indeed, you would also have been wrong had you said the first
form is "unquestionably better".
You can have your opinion, and you can have justification for that
opinion, but it is not fact, and it is not unquestionable. There are
pros and cons of both variants, and different people will put different
weightings on which of those are most important to them personally - or
which they think will be most important for the language and programmer
community in general.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 04:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <864iesjx6e.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #402897 |
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: > The cases where I want to break out of the loop from the switch in > the body of the loop are very common. That surprises me. Can you post a representative example (and ideally not overly long)?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 13:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11afvqt$2kloc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402975 |
On 11/10/2026 12:26, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> The cases where I want to break out of the loop from the switch in
>> the body of the loop are very common.
>
> That surprises me. Can you post a representative example (and
> ideally not overly long)?
An example shouldn't be necessary. It is enough to know that loop-breaks
exist and are used.
Then, whether break works here:
while (cond) {
....
break;
....
}
shouldn't need to depend on whether that break happens to be inside a
switch statement.
Maybe it is within an if-else chain, but at some point it is refactored
into a switch statement. Now it no long does what is expected, and in
fact using break to quit the loop from inside switch becomes impossible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web