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 318 — 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 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 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 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 8 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 16 Next page →
| From | Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 09:12 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <XnByS.11179$mPXe.6097@fx06.ams4> |
| In reply to | #402919 |
On 10/11/2026 6:32 AM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>> On 2026-10-10 22:03, Michael S wrote:
>>> The cases where I want to break out of the loop from the switch in
>>> the
>>> body of the loop are very common.
>>
>> Ah, so you'd have needed something like Kornshell's 'break 2' to leave
>> more than one level. - I suppose, you needed to used a 'goto' instead
>> (and avoid the 'break' completely for those cases).
>
> Something like that, sure, but please not that.
>
> Specifying the *number* of levels to break or continue is IMHO
> horrible. "break N" makes me count things so the computer doesn't
> have to.
>
> There are proposals, and precedents in other languages, for *named*
> loops, and I'd like to see that in a future C.
>
What's wrong with labels? We already have that. You can name your
loops like this,
foo: while ( bar ) {
/* ... */
for ( int i = 0 ; i < 10 ; i++ ) {
/* ... */
goto foo ;
}
/* ... */
}
and do all kinds of control structures with just C89. So, why would you
personally need named loops? Can't you code C at all?
Best wishes, and happy named loops!
--
Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/
I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com
https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:;
Federated at https://fed.brid.gy/bsky/myrkraverk.bsky.social
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 04:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11aer17$286ml$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402919 |
On 2026-10-11 00:32, Keith Thompson wrote: > Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes: >> On 2026-10-10 22:03, Michael S wrote: >>> The cases where I want to break out of the loop from the switch in >>> the >>> body of the loop are very common. >> >> Ah, so you'd have needed something like Kornshell's 'break 2' to leave >> more than one level. - I suppose, you needed to used a 'goto' instead >> (and avoid the 'break' completely for those cases). > > Something like that, sure, but please not that. > > Specifying the *number* of levels to break or continue is IMHO > horrible. "break N" makes me count things so the computer doesn't > have to. I agree; that's what I also dislike about it. The point is the question what choices you have. The 'goto' is IMO the worst; because of semantic interdependencies that will regularly lead to semantical restrictions about its applicability (or placement of labels); various languages have various restrictions, it's just a mess! The 'break' is a "cheap" solution, but also very restricted. There's yet other variants with their own drawbacks; I won't even start with it. > > There are proposals, and precedents in other languages, for *named* > loops, and I'd like to see that in a future C. One of the better possibilities, maybe; but still not satisfying for my (very subjective) taste. (Some language let you organize such things in completely other ways with no need for jumps of any sort.) Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-10 20:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11aeusp$29hmu$2@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #402936 |
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
> On 2026-10-11 00:32, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>>> On 2026-10-10 22:03, Michael S wrote:
>>>> The cases where I want to break out of the loop from the switch in
>>>> the
>>>> body of the loop are very common.
>>>
>>> Ah, so you'd have needed something like Kornshell's 'break 2' to leave
>>> more than one level. - I suppose, you needed to used a 'goto' instead
>>> (and avoid the 'break' completely for those cases).
>> Something like that, sure, but please not that.
>> Specifying the *number* of levels to break or continue is IMHO
>> horrible. "break N" makes me count things so the computer doesn't
>> have to.
>
> I agree; that's what I also dislike about it.
>
> The point is the question what choices you have. The 'goto' is IMO
> the worst; because of semantic interdependencies that will regularly
> lead to semantical restrictions about its applicability (or placement
> of labels); various languages have various restrictions, it's just
> a mess! The 'break' is a "cheap" solution, but also very restricted.
> There's yet other variants with their own drawbacks; I won't even
> start with it.
>
>> There are proposals, and precedents in other languages, for *named*
>> loops, and I'd like to see that in a future C.
>
> One of the better possibilities, maybe; but still not satisfying for
> my (very subjective) taste.
>
> (Some language let you organize such things in completely other ways
> with no need for jumps of any sort.)
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.
The "break N" syntax is specified by POSIX. It's supported by ksh,
bash, dash, zsh, and probably other Bourne-based shells. (My guess
is that it originated in ksh.) My best guess is that because the
Bourne-like shells don't have gotos, they don't have labels, so
named loops would have required inventing those too. And admittedly
I suppose it's not too bad if it's no more than a couple of levels --
but it's still easy to, ahem, *break* if you reorganize the code.
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
--
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 10:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11afhr4$286ml$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402938 |
On 2026-10-11 05:13, Keith Thompson wrote: > > 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. Yes, sure. (Reminds me Pascal that supported for 'goto' just integer numbers [in the range 1..9999, IIRC] for jumps. - This is different from 'break N' but still also a bad design, IMO. - Not sure about later Pascal dialects, though. - Numbers for labels or levels, not nice.) > > The "break N" syntax is specified by POSIX. It's supported by ksh, > bash, dash, zsh, and probably other Bourne-based shells. (My guess > is that it originated in ksh.) My best guess is that because the > Bourne-like shells don't have gotos, they don't have labels, so > named loops would have required inventing those too. And admittedly > I suppose it's not too bad if it's no more than a couple of levels -- > but it's still easy to, ahem, *break* if you reorganize the code. Yes. - But while I don't find it (the N) elegant as concept it's in practice not that bad WRT "reorganization of code" since it's (as opposed to the 'goto' in other languages) a local construct. Janis > [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 14:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86mrsdpcgp.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #402938 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 15:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11au6pr$3mdne$1@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #403221 |
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 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.
One minor drawback, IMHO, is that the name is easier to miss, because
it's not at the beginning of the line. This is based on zero experience
using it.
(The same problem exists with function names. Personally, I just
tolerate that rather than using the common convention of splitting the
return type and function name across two lines. I think I would have
preferred a syntax that puts the function name first, but I wouldn't
suggest changing it. I mildly dislike the convention of writing
int
func(void)
for reasons that are vague enough that I won't go into them.)
--
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 | 2026-10-17 01:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11auc0s$206gh$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403224 |
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? ;-)
>
> 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.)
>
> One minor drawback, IMHO, is that the name is easier to miss, because
> it's not at the beginning of the line. This is based on zero experience
> using it.
If that sort of jump would be _restricted_ to the respective loop
then I'd not see how I'd miss that since it's closely placed. (It
might also help if, as shown above, some all-caps convention would
be applied to labels.)
>
> (The same problem exists with function names. Personally, I just
> tolerate that rather than using the common convention of splitting the
> return type and function name across two lines. I think I would have
> preferred a syntax that puts the function name first, but I wouldn't
> suggest changing it. I mildly dislike the convention of writing
> int
> func(void)
> for reasons that are vague enough that I won't go into them.)
Well, there were both variants, the Algol 60 "integer procedure"
and the Algol 68 "(...) INT :" (or Pascal's syntax equivalent with
a 'function' keyword, similarly, but with another syntax, in Awk).
But there's more syntactic factors that influence where the name is
located, so many variants are existing. (But we're anyway talking
just about "C", so it's all void, whatever personal preferences.)
The point with the separation of two lines is a question distinct
from the choice, unless we'd choose a syntactic variant of the two
forms, specifically "fname (parms) res_t" (i.e. without keyword).
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.)
Janis
[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]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 06:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86zewkidn4.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #402976 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > 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. It doesn't surprise me that they exist. What surprises me is that they are common, in code written by someone I consider a competent programmer. I don't care about what idiotic things are done by people who aren't competent programmers. You might want to think about the deeper meaning of that last sentence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 14:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11ag49c$2mal9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402979 |
On 11/10/2026 14:13, Tim Rentsch wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> 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. > > It doesn't surprise me that they exist. What surprises me is > that they are common, in code written by someone I consider a > competent programmer. I don't care about what idiotic things > are done by people who aren't competent programmers. > > You might want to think about the deeper meaning of that last > sentence. You might also think about the deeper meaning of my comments. You don't take a problem feature of a language design and brush it under the carpet. Then, when questioned, suggest that it's very rarely used. Or when it is used, that they shouldn't using it because everyone should be as clever as you at writing convoluted code: Look how clever I am, I've never needed to use '(loop) break' or 'goto' ever. (See, I even had to qualify that 'break' because 'switch' stupidly uses the same keyword.) And you're ignoring my point: inside a loop is a conditional break. But as the language is now, you must use if-else for that condition and not switch. That is a flaw.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 15:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11ag37o$2ln0a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402976 |
On 11/10/2026 14:35, bart wrote:
> 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.
>
The question was not about how it is possible to write a loop within a
switch and have a "break" statement inside the loop. The question was
about how often such code was written, and what makes it "very common"
for Michael. I am also curious to know if he finds the use of the same
"break" keyword makes the code more difficult to read, or increases the
risk of errors or misunderstandings.
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 09:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11agbsh$2pbk7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402980 |
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.
--
Best regards,
Andrey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 19:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11aggaq$2qqh9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402988 |
On 11/10/2026 18:01, Andrey Tarasevich wrote:
> 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.
>
Certainly plenty of loops have "break" statements, especially as an
early exit.
Sometimes code is written with big switches in a function, and the cases
might include loops, and those loops might have break statements. The
question is why someone might consider this a very common situation, and
why they might consider it a failing that the same keyword is used for a
switch "break" and for a loop "break". There are two possibilities I
can imagine, but Michael may have other things in mind. One is that the
code is less clear than it might otherwise have been - if that is the
case, then I think the code should be considered for re-factoring into
separate functions if the inner loops are too complex. The other
possibility is that the programmer wanted to break out of the switch
from within the middle of the inner loop. I can imagine that happening,
and it would currently need either a bit of extra code to do the
"breaking" in two steps, a "goto", or refactoring into a separate
function. But it seems strange to me that someone would feel that was a
common enough problem to want to have "switch break" and "loop break" be
separate keywords, rather than go straight to a "break <label>" solution
that would be more general.
Only Michael can, if he wants, explain what he was thinking.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 18:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11agils$2s3tg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402990 |
On 11/10/2026 18:17, David Brown wrote:
> On 11/10/2026 18:01, Andrey Tarasevich wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> Certainly plenty of loops have "break" statements, especially as an
> early exit.
>
> Sometimes code is written with big switches in a function, and the cases
> might include loops, and those loops might have break statements. The
> question is why someone might consider this a very common situation, and
> why they might consider it a failing that the same keyword is used for a
> switch "break" and for a loop "break". There are two possibilities I
> can imagine, but Michael may have other things in mind. One is that the
> code is less clear than it might otherwise have been - if that is the
> case, then I think the code should be considered for re-factoring into
> separate functions if the inner loops are too complex. The other
> possibility is that the programmer wanted to break out of the switch
> from within the middle of the inner loop. I can imagine that happening,
> and it would currently need either a bit of extra code to do the
> "breaking" in two steps, a "goto", or refactoring into a separate
> function. But it seems strange to me that someone would feel that was a
> common enough problem to want to have "switch break" and "loop break" be
> separate keywords, rather than go straight to a "break <label>" solution
> that would be more general.
>
> Only Michael can, if he wants, explain what he was thinking.
It sounds like he's pressurised into doing so. Maybe so that he can be
lectured on how to it 'properly'.
'break' to quit a loop early is part of the language, so why shouldn't
someone make use it?
It just its use can be interfered with when 'switch' is involved.
That that happens and needs a workaround, is not satisfactory. The issue
exists 100% because of sharing the 'break' keyword for two different
purposes.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 14:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11agv1t$30q22$2@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #402992 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> 'break' to quit a loop early is part of the language, so why shouldn't
> someone make use it?
Agreed. (There are coding styles that require loops to exit only at the
bottom, but that's not what we're talking about.)
> It just its use can be interfered with when 'switch' is involved.
Yes. Everyone here knows that, and knew it before you started talking
about it.
Michael S wrote above that "The cases where I want to break out of
the loop from the switch in the body of the loop are very common."
Tim Rentsch questioned the "very common" part of that, and asked
for an example. You jumped in and asserted that an example isn't
necessary, because you misunderstood what was being said. *Of
course* there are cases where someone might want to break out of
a loop from a nested switch.
> That that happens and needs a workaround, is not satisfactory. The
> issue exists 100% because of sharing the 'break' keyword for two
> different purposes.
Yes, the overloading of the "break" keyword can be inconvenient.
It makes it difficult to break out of a loop from within a switch
statement. Again, everyone here knows that.
Breaking out of an outer loop from within an inner loop is just
as much of a problem. "break NAME;" proposed for C2y, would solve
both problems. (I just found out that recent versions of gcc and
clang support this as an extension or with "-std=c2y".)
--
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 23:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11ah12b$320sj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403007 |
On 11/10/2026 22:28, Keith Thompson wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > [...] >> 'break' to quit a loop early is part of the language, so why shouldn't >> someone make use it? > > Agreed. (There are coding styles that require loops to exit only at the > bottom, but that's not what we're talking about.) > >> It just its use can be interfered with when 'switch' is involved. > > Yes. Everyone here knows that, and knew it before you started talking > about it. > > Michael S wrote above that "The cases where I want to break out of > the loop from the switch in the body of the loop are very common." > Tim Rentsch questioned the "very common" part of that, and asked > for an example. You jumped in and asserted that an example isn't > necessary, because you misunderstood what was being said. *Of > course* there are cases where someone might want to break out of > a loop from a nested switch. You're missing the undercurrent, which is a tone of disapproval and disbelief. But we'll find out if and when examples are ever posted. However you may want to consider that examples are rare, or even non-existent, /because/ it's not possible to do! So using 'switch' is avoided or some other workaround is found. Michael S actually said this: "The cases where I want to break out of the loop from the switch in the body of the loop are very common." This expresses a desire to do so. > Breaking out of an outer loop from within an inner loop is just > as much of a problem. A less common one but when it happens it will be an actual problem and not an artificial one. > "break NAME;" proposed for C2y, would solve > both problems. (I just found out that recent versions of gcc and > clang support this as an extension or with "-std=c2y".) OK. I'd rather have a solution that doesn't involve inventing names. Does this also fix the break-out-of-a-loop-from-inside-switch issue? In that case just 'break for/while' might do! You know, a little bit like using a different keyword for loops/non-loops.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 16:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11ah640$329bt$5@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #403009 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 11/10/2026 22:28, Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
> You're missing the undercurrent, which is a tone of disapproval and
> disbelief.
I was responding to what you wrote, not to some "undercurrent".
Missing it? I'm practically drowning in it.
You're missing the fact that the problems you keep complaining
about are things that (essentially) everyone was already aware of.
You seem unable to understand that the rest of aren't as angry about
fallthrough as you are, and that we might have valid reasons for
not being angry about it. You seem to think that anyone who is not
outraged that C hasn't added a version of switch that doesn't have
fallthrough simply doesn't understand what you're saying.
[...]
>> Breaking out of an outer loop from within an inner loop is just
>> as much of a problem.
>
> A less common one but when it happens it will be an actual problem and
> not an artificial one.
>
>> "break NAME;" proposed for C2y, would solve
>> both problems. (I just found out that recent versions of gcc and
>> clang support this as an extension or with "-std=c2y".)
[...]
> Does this also fix the break-out-of-a-loop-from-inside-switch issue?
It fixes it in the sense that both loops and switch statements can be
named, and a break or continue can optionally refer to the name of the
targeted loop or switch statement. Of course it doesn't automatically
fix existing code.
> In that case just 'break for/while' might do!
That would work for a "for" within a "while", or a "while" within
a "for", but not for a "while" within a "while" or a "for" within
a "for".
There is ample precedent for named loops in other languages.
--
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 | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 04:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86ik37i3kl.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #403007 |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > [...] > >> 'break' to quit a loop early is part of the language, so why shouldn't >> someone make use it? > > Agreed. (There are coding styles that require loops to exit only at the > bottom, but that's not what we're talking about.) > >> It just its use can be interfered with when 'switch' is involved. > > Yes. Everyone here knows that, and knew it before you started talking > about it. > > Michael S wrote above that "The cases where I want to break out of > the loop from the switch in the body of the loop are very common." > Tim Rentsch questioned the "very common" part of that, and asked > for an example. [...] I didn't question it. I just said it surprised me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 22:02 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20261012220256.00003d07@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #403007 |
On Sun, 11 Oct 2026 14:28:29 -0700 Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > [...] > > 'break' to quit a loop early is part of the language, so why > > shouldn't someone make use it? > > Agreed. (There are coding styles that require loops to exit only at > the bottom, but that's not what we're talking about.) > > > It just its use can be interfered with when 'switch' is involved. > > Yes. Everyone here knows that, and knew it before you started talking > about it. > > Michael S wrote above that "The cases where I want to break out of > the loop from the switch in the body of the loop are very common." > Tim Rentsch questioned the "very common" part of that, and asked > for an example. You jumped in and asserted that an example isn't > necessary, because you misunderstood what was being said. > I didn't read the whole subthread, but from what I read it seems that the only reader that misunderstood my statement was David Brown. The rest, including bart, understood just fine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web