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 18 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 Next page →
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-10 16:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11aehqg$24k8m$3@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #402873 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 10/10/2026 03:17, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> On 10/10/2026 01:25, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> For comparison, here is an example of Python’s match-statement. Like
>>>> all the good (i.e. non-C-based) designs, the designers saw no point in
>>>> having fall-through.
>>>
>>> C, doesn't specifically have fallthrough. It's just that C's switch is
>>> so bizarre, 'fallthrough' is a consequence of it being so dumb it
>>> doesn't know it's still inside a switch statement; it is just code
>>> that it carries ploughing through until it hits more control flow.
>>
>> C's switch statement is essentially a computed goto. It goes back
>> to BCPL (1967), which had different syntax (SWITCHON, CASE, ENDCASE)
>> but similar semantics. BCPL's predecessor, CPL, had a more explicit
>> computed goto that could be used in the same way; the target of a
>> "go to" could be a label expression.
>>
>> Think of C's "switch", not as an inferior version of Pascal's case
>> statement, but as an improved version of a computed goto.
>
> It's not that great as computed goto either. That tended to look like this:
>
> goto (L1, L2, L3) index
BCPL's "SWITCHON" is a more structured replacement for what was probably
(I'm speculating) a major use case for CPL's "go to expr".
[...]
> And, these days 'computed goto' in C tends to means something
> specific, which is a kind of looping switch but using multiple
> dispatch points (each break has its own goto *jumptable) rather the
> regular switch's one at the start).
Huh? "computed goto" is not a looping construct. But C doesn't
have computed goto, so I'm not going to discuss it here other than
in the context of how C's switch statement came to be.
[...]
> (Of, course, my language has it all:
Of course it does.
[...]
>> The ANSI C Rationale says "No serious consideration was given to
>> making the switch more structured, as in Pascal, out of fear of
>> invalidating working code".
>>
>> I suppose some version of C could have defined a new switch-like
>> statement without the fallthrough behavior. I can see some small
>> advantages in doing so, but the existing switch with fallthrough
>> would have to be kept in the language -- and such a new switch-like
>> statement would have added no real expressive power. We'd now have
>> a mix of code using the old and new constructs, pressure to convert
>> existing working code, and probably errors introduced by converting
>> code incorrectly.
>
> I guess the same rationale means it is stuck with for(;;) loops?
Yes, of course it does. Did you think that a construct that's used in
most existing C programs could just be removed from the language?
> That hasn't stop C++ having a higher level version.
C is not C++. A future C could have additional looping constructs,
but I haven't seen any concrete proposals.
[...]
>> Anything you could do with a more structured switch-like statement can
>> be done, with just a little care, with the existing switch statement.
>
> With a LOT more care, and with too much flexibility making it too easy
> to get things wrong. You even have this:
No, with a little care.
> case 10: default: case 20:
Doctor, it hurts when I do this.
[...]
>> Yes, you have to remember to write "break;" at the end of each case.
>> I haven't seen any proposals to add such a feature -- probably
>> because nobody else is as angry about it as you are.
>
> I'm angry because it was SO EASY to get right in the first place
> (Algol68 and Pascal already existed), and nearly as easy to fix even
> within the intervening decades.
You're angry about a decision that was made in the 1960s and 1970s,
and you're whining about it to people who can't do anything about it.
That can't be good for you.
I've explained why it doesn't need fixing, and would not be easy to fix.
> It could also be easy to implement as structured switch can be
> syntactic sugar for an if-else-if chain.
If you want an if-else-if chain, write an if-else-if chain.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 02:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11aenps$27sq7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402923 |
On 11/10/2026 00:30, Keith Thompson wrote:
> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> Huh? "computed goto" is not a looping construct.
You only hear about it in the context of interpreter dispatch loops.
>> (Of, course, my language has it all:
>
> Of course it does.
Well, it does; what more can I say.
>
> [...]
>
>>> The ANSI C Rationale says "No serious consideration was given to
>>> making the switch more structured, as in Pascal, out of fear of
>>> invalidating working code".
>>>
>>> I suppose some version of C could have defined a new switch-like
>>> statement without the fallthrough behavior. I can see some small
>>> advantages in doing so, but the existing switch with fallthrough
>>> would have to be kept in the language -- and such a new switch-like
>>> statement would have added no real expressive power. We'd now have
>>> a mix of code using the old and new constructs, pressure to convert
>>> existing working code, and probably errors introduced by converting
>>> code incorrectly.
>>
>> I guess the same rationale means it is stuck with for(;;) loops?
>
> Yes, of course it does. Did you think that a construct that's used in
> most existing C programs could just be removed from the language?
I didn't say they should be removed.
>> case 10: default: case 20:
>
> Doctor, it hurts when I do this.
It illustrates having too much flexibility. Do compilers check for
nonsense like this?
Having proper structure must make code analysis simpler than effectively
having a bunch of case labels randomly scattered through the code.
Example:
newswitch (expr)
case 3, 4, 5:
stmt1;
case 6...10, 12:
stmt2;
else
stmt3;
I think this is OK except for the possibility of that 'else' being
attached to stmt2 when that ends with 'if (cond) stmt;'. But C already
has a rule for that and existing means to get around it.
I haven't put in provision for fall-through. If people want that, then
old switch will still work.
In this new statement, there is no special meaning for 'break'; it will
be part of any enclosing old switch or loop.
>> It could also be easy to implement as structured switch can be
>> syntactic sugar for an if-else-if chain.
>
> If you want an if-else-if chain, write an if-else-if chain.
Then why bother with switch at all?
An implementation HAS to support if-else, so I'm suggesting it wouldn't
be hard to implement structured switch, since lowering to if-else is one
easy option.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-10 19:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11aetqv$29hmu$1@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #402930 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 11/10/2026 00:30, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>> Huh? "computed goto" is not a looping construct.
>
> You only hear about it in the context of interpreter dispatch loops.
I hardly hear about it at all. I'm aware that it exists as a gcc
extension. I don't think I've ever used it. I see no point in
discussing it further.
>> [...]
>>
>>>> The ANSI C Rationale says "No serious consideration was given to
>>>> making the switch more structured, as in Pascal, out of fear of
>>>> invalidating working code".
>>>>
>>>> I suppose some version of C could have defined a new switch-like
>>>> statement without the fallthrough behavior. I can see some small
>>>> advantages in doing so, but the existing switch with fallthrough
>>>> would have to be kept in the language -- and such a new switch-like
>>>> statement would have added no real expressive power. We'd now have
>>>> a mix of code using the old and new constructs, pressure to convert
>>>> existing working code, and probably errors introduced by converting
>>>> code incorrectly.
>>>
>>> I guess the same rationale means it is stuck with for(;;) loops?
>>
>> Yes, of course it does. Did you think that a construct that's used
>> in most existing C programs could just be removed from the language?
>
> I didn't say they should be removed.
So you want to add a new and less flexible looping construct on top
of the existing one, making the language more complicated with no
real additional expressive power. (C++'s for loops are a different
matter, sensible because iterators are such a big part of the C++
standard library.)
>>> case 10: default: case 20:
>>
>> Doctor, it hurts when I do this.
>
> It illustrates having too much flexibility. Do compilers check for
> nonsense like this?
I fundamentally disagree with your claim of "too much flexibility".
"case 10: default: case 20:" perfectly valid, syntactically and
semantically. It's also silly, and not something someone would
plausibly write other than to make a point. I see no reason for
compilers to go out of their way to do anything about it. It's
reasonable for a compiler to warn about plausible errors. Putting
"default:" in the middle of a set of cases isn't a plausible
error, and I'm fine with the compiler not wasting its time with a
special warning. (I'd also be fine with a compiler warning about it.)
> Having proper structure must make code analysis simpler than
> effectively having a bunch of case labels randomly scattered through
> the code.
Not really. A reasonably clever compiler or other tool can easily
recognize a typical switch statement where each sequence of case or
default labels is followed by a "break". Code analysis becomes a little
more difficult when that pattern is broken by any of several means:
fallthrough, goto, return, continue.
> Example:
[snip]
[...]
>>> It could also be easy to implement as structured switch can be
>>> syntactic sugar for an if-else-if chain.
>>
>> If you want an if-else-if chain, write an if-else-if chain.
>
> Then why bother with switch at all?
It expresses a common pattern. It can, especially with older compilers,
result in more efficient code (a jump table) that an if/else chain
cannot directly express. It lets the expression be written and
evaluated just once. It makes the compiler diagnose the error of
specifying the same value more than once. It is as expressive as the
more restrictive case statement seen in Pascal and other languages.
It's what we have in the language. Nobody suggests that it's ideal
or perfect.
Or we could drop every control structure other than "if" and "goto".
> An implementation HAS to support if-else, so I'm suggesting it
> wouldn't be hard to implement structured switch, since lowering to
> if-else is one easy option.
How would your "structured switch" differ from the current switch
statement? Would the lack of fallthrough be the only difference?
Would the case expressions still have to be constant? Would you
allow duplicate values? Would you allow non-integer types, perhaps
with user-defined comparisons? These are all rhetorical questions,
intended merely to point out that this is not as simple as you seem
to think it is.
Would it add *any* real expressive power to a language that you
hold in contempt anyway?
Sure, we could add every feature that's not too hard to implement.
The end result would be a huge mess.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 11:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11afj78$286mm$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402937 |
On 2026-10-11 04:55, Keith Thompson wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> [...] > > Or we could drop every control structure other than "if" and "goto". Even 'goto' is redundant if we program in a functional programming way. *evil grin* ;-) Janis > [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 12:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11afrfq$2j2o6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402937 |
On 11/10/2026 03:55, Keith Thompson wrote:
> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> On 11/10/2026 00:30, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>
>>> Huh? "computed goto" is not a looping construct.
>>
>> You only hear about it in the context of interpreter dispatch loops.
>>> Yes, of course it does. Did you think that a construct that's used
>>> in most existing C programs could just be removed from the language?
>>
>> I didn't say they should be removed.
>
> So you want to add a new and less flexible looping construct on top
> of the existing one,
So how would you do it: remove existing switch completely and replace
with the new version?
Obviously new and old will have to co-exist. This could have been done
decades ago and the old switch deprecated by now.
> making the language more complicated with no
> real additional expressive power.
It's already getting more complicated.
>> It illustrates having too much flexibility. Do compilers check for
>> nonsense like this?
>
> I fundamentally disagree with your claim of "too much flexibility".
So what more flexibility do you think switch could have: working across
functions?
> "case 10: default: case 20:" perfectly valid, syntactically and
> semantically. It's also silly, and not something someone would
> plausibly write other than to make a point. I see no reason for
> compilers to go out of their way to do anything about it.
It is nonsense, akin to writing this:
if (cond) {
s1;
else
s2;
}
where the else branch is in the middle of the true branch. Is it
possible that people truly don't realise how utterly bizarre C switch is?
Or if they do, it is astounding that they just shrug it off.
> Not really. A reasonably clever compiler or other tool can easily
> recognize a typical switch statement where each sequence of case or
> default labels is followed by a "break". Code analysis becomes a little
> more difficult when that pattern is broken by any of several means:
> fallthrough, goto, return, continue.
See the example in my last post replying to David Brown. What
control-flow analysis would a compiler make of that?
>> Example:
> [snip]
I see you're not very receptive of it.
>
> [...]
>
>>>> It could also be easy to implement as structured switch can be
>>>> syntactic sugar for an if-else-if chain.
>>>
>>> If you want an if-else-if chain, write an if-else-if chain.
>>
>> Then why bother with switch at all?
>
> It expresses a common pattern.
A common pattern where one of N blocks of code is executed according to
some control expression.
But that's not what C switch does: it jumps to one of N random labels
anywhere inside any statement of any complexity and depth.
Those N blocks can overlap. Or after executing one block, it just
carries on into the next unless stopped via 'break'.
Often one of these N will be an exception (default) but in C that can be
shared with of the other blocks.
Is this the common pattern you're talking about; total chaos?
> It can, especially with older compilers,
> result in more efficient code (a jump table) that an if/else chain
> cannot directly express. It lets the expression be written and
> evaluated just once. It makes the compiler diagnose the error of
> specifying the same value more than once. It is as expressive as the
> more restrictive case statement seen in Pascal and other languages.
It's an emulation of it but with few guardrails.
> How would your "structured switch" differ from the current switch
> statement? Would the lack of fallthrough be the only difference?
> Would the case expressions still have to be constant? Would you
> allow duplicate values? Would you allow non-integer types, perhaps
> with user-defined comparisons? These are all rhetorical questions,
> intended merely to point out that this is not as simple as you seem
> to think it is.
Yes it is simple:
* The control expression is an integer
* Case values are constants, and must be unique
* The only comparison is a nominal ==
But it implements that common pattern properly as explained above.
The fall-through question doesn't arise, any more than it does in if-else.
>
> Would it add *any* real expressive power to a language that you
> hold in contempt anyway?
It provides more safety and more confidence that no weird stuff is going
on, and confidence that it is properly implementing the common pattern.
> Sure, we could add every feature that's not too hard to implement.
> The end result would be a huge mess.
Then it would be right at home! This is fixing something that should
long ago have been taken out and shot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 14:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11agtkb$30q22$1@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #402974 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 11/10/2026 03:55, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> On 11/10/2026 00:30, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Huh? "computed goto" is not a looping construct.
>>>
>>> You only hear about it in the context of interpreter dispatch loops.
>
>>>> Yes, of course it does. Did you think that a construct that's used
>>>> in most existing C programs could just be removed from the language?
>>>
>>> I didn't say they should be removed.
>> So you want to add a new and less flexible looping construct on top
>> of the existing one,
>
> So how would you do it: remove existing switch completely and replace
> with the new version?
No, I'd leave it alone.
C's switch statement is, like C as a whole, "quirky, flawed, and
an enormous success" (Dennis Ritchie said that).
You want to add a new construct that differs from switch only in
that it doesn't have implicit fallthrough. You think the existence
of fallthrough behavior, or of any flexibility that you see as
excessive, is a problem that needs to be fixed. I don't.
C's switch statement is *almost always* used to implement the same
patterns that can be implemented using Pascal's case statement.
(A minor difference is case ranges, which are proposed for C2y.)
You want to add a "newswitch" construct (presumably with a better
name) that's just like "switch" except that there's no fallthrough.
It would add no real expressive power. (I'm tempted to propose
calling it "static switch". To be clear, that's a joke.)
C already has such a construct, called "switch and don't forget to
write break after each case". There are existing tools that help
with that.
Would it have been better if C's switch statement had behaved
like your "newswitch"? Yeah, probably. If I were inventing a new
language, I probably wouldn't copy that particular design decision
from C. Fallthrough *is* useful sometimes, so I'd probably suggest
adding a "fallthrough" keyword.
But the existing switch statement is good enough, and the cost of
"fixing" it would be much higher than the minimal benefits.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 23:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11ah16h$320sj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403002 |
On 11/10/2026 22:04, Keith Thompson wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 11/10/2026 03:55, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>> On 11/10/2026 00:30, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> Huh? "computed goto" is not a looping construct. >>>> >>>> You only hear about it in the context of interpreter dispatch loops. >> >>>>> Yes, of course it does. Did you think that a construct that's used >>>>> in most existing C programs could just be removed from the language? >>>> >>>> I didn't say they should be removed. >>> So you want to add a new and less flexible looping construct on top >>> of the existing one, >> >> So how would you do it: remove existing switch completely and replace >> with the new version? > > No, I'd leave it alone. > > C's switch statement is, like C as a whole, "quirky, flawed, and > an enormous success" (Dennis Ritchie said that). Yeah, like anyone had a choice in the matter! > You want to add a new construct that differs from switch only in > that it doesn't have implicit fallthrough. You think the existence > of fallthrough behavior, or of any flexibility that you see as > excessive, is a problem that needs to be fixed. I don't. So you don't really get it. That's fine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 07:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11ahqpu$38ir0$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403010 |
On 12/10/2026 00:05, bart wrote: > On 11/10/2026 22:04, Keith Thompson wrote: >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> On 11/10/2026 03:55, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>>> On 11/10/2026 00:30, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> Huh? "computed goto" is not a looping construct. >>>>> >>>>> You only hear about it in the context of interpreter dispatch loops. >>> >>>>>> Yes, of course it does. Did you think that a construct that's used >>>>>> in most existing C programs could just be removed from the language? >>>>> >>>>> I didn't say they should be removed. >>>> So you want to add a new and less flexible looping construct on top >>>> of the existing one, >>> >>> So how would you do it: remove existing switch completely and replace >>> with the new version? >> >> No, I'd leave it alone. >> >> C's switch statement is, like C as a whole, "quirky, flawed, and >> an enormous success" (Dennis Ritchie said that). > > Yeah, like anyone had a choice in the matter! There are /no/ programming languages that are successful, but not "quirky and flawed" - though there will always be differing opinions on what aspects are "quirky", and what aspects are "flawed". As long as there is more than one person involved, writing code in more than one way for more than one task, this is inevitable. The conflicts you have with people here do not stem from the quirks or flaws that you see in the C language. They stem from your totally unjustified belief that others do not see C as quirky and flawed - your arrogant and megalomanic belief that you alone see its quirks and flaws, and that you alone can "fix" them. The rest of us know that C is a very successful language, and can use it to write good and useful code. Some people here write in C because they like the language, some because it is the only language they can use (for one of many possible reasons). I have never met a C programmer who does not think the language would have been better with certain changes - but I have never met a programmer of /any/ language who does not have ideas about how the language could have been better for their use. > >> You want to add a new construct that differs from switch only in >> that it doesn't have implicit fallthrough. You think the existence >> of fallthrough behavior, or of any flexibility that you see as >> excessive, is a problem that needs to be fixed. I don't. > > So you don't really get it. That's fine. > So now you can drop it, along with all your other complaints about the C language and tools people use with it? Alternatively, you are free to write proposals for the C standards committee, or take part in their discussions, aiming to actually change the things you so passionately insist need fixing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 11:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11aidi3$3gbu4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403026 |
On 12/10/2026 06:22, David Brown wrote:
> On 12/10/2026 00:05, bart wrote:
>> So you don't really get it. That's fine.
>>
>
> So now you can drop it, along with all your other complaints about the C
> language and tools people use with it?
My opinions haven't changed at all. KT doesn't care because he doesn't
understand the importance of having properly designed features. Probably
he hasn't been involved in having to process somebody else's source code
or having to translate it or port it.
I have an old tool which /visualises/ C source code by trying to express
it in my syntax. It is not a formal transpiler: the semantics are not
translated, just the shape of the code.
Still, the transformation is usually startlingly clear compared with the
original. Anyway I applied it to two examples, first:
switch (a) {
case 1: 10; break;
case 2: 20; break;
default: 30;
}
The output is:
switch a
when 1 then
10
when 2 then
20
else
30
end
Notice there are no breaks (which don't exist in my syntax). This is the
second:
switch (a) {
default:
if (b) {
case 1: 10; break;
case 2: 20; break;
}
}
The ") {" had to present as the tool requires the switch body to be a
compound statement. The output is:
switch a
else
if b then
end
end
This generated error messages about case-statement not being supported
(being out of place).
But it doesn't look right does it?. Maybe a better version could express
switch using gotos and arrays of label-pointers, but this would be
disastrous for examples like the first.
I then tried Duff's example for fun, and it produced this:
switch count rem 8
when 0 then
to^ := (from++)^
fallthrough
when 7 then
to^ := (from++)^
fallthrough
when 6 then
to^ := (from++)^
fallthrough
when 5 then
to^ := (from++)^
fallthrough
when 4 then
to^ := (from++)^
fallthrough
when 3 then
to^ := (from++)^
fallthrough
when 2 then
to^ := (from++)^
fallthrough
when 1 then
to^ := (from++)^
end
I'm surprised that it detected fall-through, but probably only in the
simplest cases (non-empty block not ending in 'break').
'fallthrough' doesn't exist in my syntax so here it must just be a hint.
> Alternatively, you are free to write proposals for the C standards
> committee, or take part in their discussions, aiming to actually change
> the things you so passionately insist need fixing.
I'll be long dead before anything happens. It's taken most of my
lifetime before even a no-brainer like binary literals became official.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 16:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11aiq1l$3kr94$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403029 |
On 12/10/2026 12:42, bart wrote: > On 12/10/2026 06:22, David Brown wrote: >> On 12/10/2026 00:05, bart wrote: > >>> So you don't really get it. That's fine. >>> >> >> So now you can drop it, along with all your other complaints about the >> C language and tools people use with it? > > My opinions haven't changed at all. KT doesn't care because he doesn't > understand the importance of having properly designed features. Probably > he hasn't been involved in having to process somebody else's source code > or having to translate it or port it. > Again, I am not responsible for other people's posts - but I am entirely confident that Keith appreciates well-designed programming languages. And I am entirely confident that he was a lot of experience dealing with other people's code. > >> Alternatively, you are free to write proposals for the C standards >> committee, or take part in their discussions, aiming to actually >> change the things you so passionately insist need fixing. > I'll be long dead before anything happens. It's taken most of my > lifetime before even a no-brainer like binary literals became official. That is perhaps because the people involved with the C language not only /have/ brains, but they also use them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 14:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <td6zS.60653$jNL6.31326@fx12.iad> |
| In reply to | #403029 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >On 12/10/2026 06:22, David Brown wrote: >> On 12/10/2026 00:05, bart wrote: > >>> So you don't really get it. That's fine. >>> >> >> So now you can drop it, along with all your other complaints about the C >> language and tools people use with it? > >My opinions haven't changed at all. KT doesn't care because he doesn't >understand the importance of having properly designed features. "properly designed" by what criteria? Making you happy is not a valid criteria.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 16:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11aivdn$3nvmh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403035 |
On 12/10/2026 15:34, Scott Lurndal wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 12/10/2026 06:22, David Brown wrote: >>> On 12/10/2026 00:05, bart wrote: >> >>>> So you don't really get it. That's fine. >>>> >>> >>> So now you can drop it, along with all your other complaints about the C >>> language and tools people use with it? >> >> My opinions haven't changed at all. KT doesn't care because he doesn't >> understand the importance of having properly designed features. > > "properly designed" by what criteria? > > Making you happy is not a valid criteria. Is there any language that you would consider badly designed? If so, what would you do if it become amazingly popular and you were obliged to deal with it in your work; would you change your mind, or would you still think it was poor? Hopefully the latter. But back to C: this is how 'switch' is defined in the grammar: 'switch' ( expression ) statement Notice no mention of 'case' or 'default' statements! Is that not a giant red flag, that there is normal shape to switch-statement syntax?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 00:15 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <dI7zS.10223$AEj4.10181@fx17.ams4> |
| In reply to | #403038 |
On 10/12/2026 11:47 PM, bart wrote: > On 12/10/2026 15:34, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> On 12/10/2026 06:22, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 12/10/2026 00:05, bart wrote: >>> >>>>> So you don't really get it. That's fine. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So now you can drop it, along with all your other complaints about >>>> the C >>>> language and tools people use with it? >>> >>> My opinions haven't changed at all. KT doesn't care because he doesn't >>> understand the importance of having properly designed features. >> >> "properly designed" by what criteria? >> >> Making you happy is not a valid criteria. > > Is there any language that you would consider badly designed? > > If so, what would you do if it become amazingly popular and you were > obliged to deal with it in your work; would you change your mind, or > would you still think it was poor? > > Hopefully the latter. > > But back to C: this is how 'switch' is defined in the grammar: > > 'switch' ( expression ) statement > > Notice no mention of 'case' or 'default' statements! > > Is that not a giant red flag, that there is normal shape to switch- > statement syntax? Not to me. A giant red flag would be something akin to switch ( foo ) printf( "Hello, bart\n" ) ; where the printf() never gets called. Best wishes, and happy red flags! -- 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 | ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 17:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <flag-20261012180101@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #403039 |
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote or quoted:
>Not to me. A giant red flag would be something akin to
> switch ( foo ) printf( "Hello, bart\n" ) ;
>where the printf() never gets called.
GCC also flags it:
main.c: In function 'main':
main.c:3:30: warning: statement will never be executed [-Wswitch-unreachable]
3 | int main( void ){ switch( 0 )printf( "Hello!\n" ); }
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. I use, " . . . -pedantic . . . -Wall -W -Wextra -Wpedantic . . .".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 20:04 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <M7pzS.141305$wun8.135843@fx13.ams4> |
| In reply to | #403040 |
On 10/13/2026 1:02 AM, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote or quoted:
>> Not to me. A giant red flag would be something akin to
>> switch ( foo ) printf( "Hello, bart\n" ) ;
>> where the printf() never gets called.
>
> GCC also flags it:
>
> main.c: In function 'main':
> main.c:3:30: warning: statement will never be executed [-Wswitch-unreachable]
> 3 | int main( void ){ switch( 0 )printf( "Hello!\n" ); }
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> . I use, " . . . -pedantic . . . -Wall -W -Wextra -Wpedantic . . .".
You're right. And a quick and immediate silence follows if we simply
transpose the printf() and 0, as follows.
signed main( void ){ switch( printf( "Hello!\n" ) ) break ; }
We could call this refactoring maneuver /switch castle/, after the cas-
tle movement in chess.
Now GCC does /not/ complain about a useless break, unlike bart [1].
But isn't that a bug in GCC? Shouldn't a useless break have the same
diagnostic as a bypassed printf()? Like an idiotic journalist, I ask
/inquiring minds want to know/?
Best wishes, and happy /switch castle/ refactoring adventures.
[1] Or was bart complaining that the break was /not/ useless, and com-
pulsory. I'm getting a bit confused trying to follow the argument, but
it's really popcorn worthy, and I guess I'll have to order industrial
amount of it next time this comes up.
--
Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/
I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com
https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:;
Federated at https://fed.brid.gy/bsky/myrkraverk.bsky.social
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 17:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tidy-20261013182719@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #403099 |
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote or quoted:
> signed main( void ){ switch( printf( "Hello!\n" ) ) break ; }
. . .
>Now GCC does /not/ complain about a useless break, unlike bart [1].
>But isn't that a bug in GCC?
With "-Wswitch-default", gcc will note that there is no "default".
One can apply "clang-tidy" to that code to get,
. . .
|main.c:3:55: warning: 'break' will never be executed
|signed main( void ){ switch( printf( "Hello!\n" ) ) break ; }
| ^
|main.c:3:55: warning: This statement is never executed
|signed main( void ){ switch( printf( "Hello!\n" ) ) break ; }
| ^
|main.c:3:55: note: This statement is never executed
|signed main( void ){ switch( printf( "Hello!\n" ) ) break ; }
| ^
. . .
, but "clang-tidy" actually is intended for C++, so one will also
get some warnings that do not apply to C programs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 02:05 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <cquzS.145357$koK3.143660@fx01.ams4> |
| In reply to | #403115 |
On 10/14/2026 1:28 AM, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote or quoted:
>> signed main( void ){ switch( printf( "Hello!\n" ) ) break ; }
> . . .
>> Now GCC does /not/ complain about a useless break, unlike bart [1].
>> But isn't that a bug in GCC?
>
> With "-Wswitch-default", gcc will note that there is no "default".
>
> One can apply "clang-tidy" to that code to get,
>
> . . .
> |main.c:3:55: warning: 'break' will never be executed
> |signed main( void ){ switch( printf( "Hello!\n" ) ) break ; }
> | ^
> |main.c:3:55: warning: This statement is never executed
> |signed main( void ){ switch( printf( "Hello!\n" ) ) break ; }
> | ^
> |main.c:3:55: note: This statement is never executed
> |signed main( void ){ switch( printf( "Hello!\n" ) ) break ; }
> | ^
> . . .
>
> , but "clang-tidy" actually is intended for C++, so one will also
> get some warnings that do not apply to C programs.
Thank you. Now posters of comp.lang.c can indeed publish an issue of
the GCC magazine, and file a defect report on the behaviour of the com-
piler in the presence of a wild /break/ statement bound to an unlabelled
switch ().
--
Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/
I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com
https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:;
Federated at https://fed.brid.gy/bsky/myrkraverk.bsky.social
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 17:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <BC8zS.76490$w7wb.36545@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #403038 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >On 12/10/2026 15:34, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> On 12/10/2026 06:22, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 12/10/2026 00:05, bart wrote: >>> >>>>> So you don't really get it. That's fine. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So now you can drop it, along with all your other complaints about the C >>>> language and tools people use with it? >>> >>> My opinions haven't changed at all. KT doesn't care because he doesn't >>> understand the importance of having properly designed features. >> >> "properly designed" by what criteria? >> >> Making you happy is not a valid criteria. > >Is there any language that you would consider badly designed? I would prefer that you first describe the specific generic criteria that you believe apply to a "properly designed" language, rather than attempting to change the topic, and then explicitly noting which of those generic criteria are violated by early exits from switch statements in the C language which is the nominal topic for this usenet newsgroup. Please do not reference your personal languages, compilers or opinions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 17:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11aj5rt$3bd$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #403038 |
In article <11aivdn$3nvmh$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >On 12/10/2026 15:34, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> On 12/10/2026 06:22, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 12/10/2026 00:05, bart wrote: >>> >>>>> So you don't really get it. That's fine. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So now you can drop it, along with all your other complaints about the C >>>> language and tools people use with it? >>> >>> My opinions haven't changed at all. KT doesn't care because he doesn't >>> understand the importance of having properly designed features. >> >> "properly designed" by what criteria? >> >> Making you happy is not a valid criteria. > >Is there any language that you would consider badly designed? Yes. PHP. >If so, what would you do if it become amazingly popular and you were >obliged to deal with it in your work; would you change your mind, or >would you still think it was poor? Fortunately, I am not obliged to deal with PHP, but if I were, I suspect my opinion of it would go down, not up. Regardless, I think it fair to categorize it as, "amazingly popular." - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 17:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11aj5nt$t7t$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #403029 |
In article <11aidi3$3gbu4$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >On 12/10/2026 06:22, David Brown wrote: >> On 12/10/2026 00:05, bart wrote: > >>> So you don't really get it. That's fine. >>> >> >> So now you can drop it, along with all your other complaints about the C >> language and tools people use with it? > >My opinions haven't changed at all. KT doesn't care because he doesn't >understand the importance of having properly designed features. Probably >he hasn't been involved in having to process somebody else's source code >or having to translate it or port it. I think you're free to criticize the language, if you like. But you are not free to assign to others opinions that they may not hold; at least if you intend to be taken seriously. I kinda sorta agree that requiring `break` between `case` statements in C was an historical mistake, but here we are: it is 2026, and the language has done that for more than 50 years now. The ship for changing it has sailed. What is one left to do, besides acknowledging it as a wart on the face of the langauge? Everyone here knows that C is imperfect; everyone knows that if one were starting from scratch now, given the hindsight of 50+ years, one would do things differently. So what? We're not starting from scratch, the language we have is the language that we have, and there are real-world complexities that make it difficult (at best!) to change. Simply put, no one is suggesting that C is perfect, but people are saying that one can live with it. I don't read Keith trying to defend C here so much as simply explain what it does, and how one works around the complaints about it that you identify. >I have an old tool which /visualises/ C source code by trying to express >it in my syntax. It is not a formal transpiler: the semantics are not >translated, just the shape of the code. > >Still, the transformation is usually startlingly clear compared with the >original. Anyway I applied it to two examples, first: > >[snip] So what? What do you think that that shows? That your language doesn't have `break`? Ok, but you already knew that, right? We have it on your authority that it is true, so we know that, too. But why does it matter? I find such arguments strange, as they're not really arguing anything meaningful. It's like Anton Ertl's complaint about Rust vis binary search trees in `comp.arch`: because he did not write his tree implementation using completely safe Rust _the same way he did in C_, then somehow Rust is deficient; but Rust is a different programming language, with different semantics and different constraints about how objects may be referred to, etc. That the structure of a program in two different programming languages with different semantics is different seems axiomatic, and frankly doesn't say much about the language. So it is here, as well. You can fairly say, "I don't like this" about something in C; that's fine. Others may even agree with you. But C is what it is, and unless you're willing to engage with the committee and larger language community to change it (which is going to be very, very hard; buckle up) then that is all that it will be. - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 18 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web