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 | 2026-10-22 00:33 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 471 — 24 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 Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:28 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 09:05 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-19 14:35 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-19 18:31 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Bob Duff <invalid@invalid.com> - 2026-10-19 19:38 -0400
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 17:03 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-20 02:45 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-20 05:01 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 00:45 -0700
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 Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-19 08:47 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 18:28 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 16:11 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-20 01:02 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 09:18 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-18 22:33 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-20 02:53 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-20 12:22 +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 Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-19 23:41 +0000
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 antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-20 00:16 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-20 16:10 -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 cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-19 17:22 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-19 20:34 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-20 00:35 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-20 00:04 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-20 01:03 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-20 02:44 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-20 15:11 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 17:02 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-20 21:07 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 11:20 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 12:29 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 16:40 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-20 23:33 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 00:01 +0100
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 bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-19 22:28 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 10:01 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-20 12:41 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 14:58 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 17:05 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 12:45 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 02:04 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 13:21 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 11:26 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 12:33 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 14:21 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 15:41 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 17:36 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 15:37 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 17:22 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-21 17:21 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 19:04 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 18:38 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 20:36 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 20:36 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 23:10 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 22:55 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-21 19:17 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 20:49 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 18:56 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-20 19:24 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-20 21:30 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-20 21:44 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-20 23:43 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 00:56 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-21 02:39 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 18:55 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-21 07:22 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 01:56 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 15:10 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 14:17 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 13:22 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 17:29 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-21 18:43 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 13:02 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:48 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-20 01:18 +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 Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-10-19 16:55 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-20 02:40 +0000
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 Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-19 22:35 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 23:27 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-19 23:29 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-20 00:57 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-20 00:55 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 10:25 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-20 16:56 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-20 17:32 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 18:23 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-21 15:28 +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
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 11:19 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-21 09:29 -0600
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-22 00:33 +0000
Page 12 of 24 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 24 Next page →
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 18:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11alkqa$4o6l$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403104 |
On 2026-10-13 16:38, Dan Cross wrote: > In article <11al8uc$hk7a$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> [snip] >> So your workaround had an error. That's what happens. I could foresee such a stupid response! - You're a hopeless case. Given that you've had even stupid syntax errors in your original code I'm astonished that you even dare to get into such argument. > > There is no programming that prevents all errors. (That was not even programming; it was a quick write down for the post as an example structure to explain what's to be visualized.) > >> [snip] >> Jesus. I take it that you don't agree it is a hack then? Writing a loop with a predicate that is composed by an 'and' is certainly not a "hack" but usual programming. Nowadays you learn such things in kindergarten. Janis > [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 20:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11am5lk$53i$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #403111 |
In article <11alkqa$4o6l$3@dont-email.me>, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: >On 2026-10-13 16:38, Dan Cross wrote: >> In article <11al8uc$hk7a$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>> [snip] >>> So your workaround had an error. That's what happens. > >I could foresee such a stupid response! - You're a hopeless case. >Given that you've had even stupid syntax errors in your original >code I'm astonished that you even dare to get into such argument. > >> >> There is no programming that prevents all errors. > >(That was not even programming; it was a quick write down for the >post as an example structure to explain what's to be visualized.) > >> >>> [snip] >>> Jesus. I take it that you don't agree it is a hack then? > >Writing a loop with a predicate that is composed by an 'and' is >certainly not a "hack" but usual programming. Nowadays you learn >such things in kindergarten. Were you referring to me, Janis? Or to bart? - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 22:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11am7i3$u28q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403123 |
On 13/10/2026 21:52, Dan Cross wrote: > In article <11alkqa$4o6l$3@dont-email.me>, > Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 2026-10-13 16:38, Dan Cross wrote: >>> In article <11al8uc$hk7a$1@dont-email.me>, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>>> [snip] >>>> So your workaround had an error. That's what happens. >> >> I could foresee such a stupid response! - You're a hopeless case. >> Given that you've had even stupid syntax errors in your original >> code I'm astonished that you even dare to get into such argument. >> >>> >>> There is no programming that prevents all errors. >> >> (That was not even programming; it was a quick write down for the >> post as an example structure to explain what's to be visualized.) >> >>> >>>> [snip] >>>> Jesus. I take it that you don't agree it is a hack then? >> >> Writing a loop with a predicate that is composed by an 'and' is >> certainly not a "hack" but usual programming. Nowadays you learn >> such things in kindergarten. > > Were you referring to me, Janis? Or to bart? If there's any insult implied then it will have been me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 00:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11am9r9$4o6m$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403123 |
On 2026-10-13 22:52, Dan Cross wrote: > > Were you referring to me, Janis? Or to bart? You can identify the association of the answers by its attribution indent level. - Most was attributed to bart's text that was quoted. The only part that was attributed to what you said was this: Dan wrote: >> >> There is no programming that prevents all errors. I commented that, in parenthesis (i.e. just as a side remark): > > (That was not even programming; it was a quick write down for the > post as an example structure to explain what's to be visualized.) Bart perceived my program text as a "programming error", I explained that it was just a sloppy "Usenet-posting writing error". Of course programming errors can happen. As can writing errors happen. Given his text in your post gave the impression that he considers my sloppy code-writing in my post as a problem of the technical language design of "C"; it wasn't, IMO. - That was all I tried to communicate. While we seem to have a different view on whether the C-code is to be considered a "hack" (or as I see it, just typical programming) I didn't think that this difference in views is worth discussing since that's just (our personal) opinions. Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 10:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11anmv1$qee$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #403130 |
In article <11am9r9$4o6m$4@dont-email.me>, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: >On 2026-10-13 22:52, Dan Cross wrote: >> >> Were you referring to me, Janis? Or to bart? > >You can identify the association of the answers by its attribution >indent level. - Most was attributed to bart's text that was quoted. Sure. I was just surprised that the reply to my post was the vehicle to reply to bart. Anyway, no worries! - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 17:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11ao8k4$4o6l$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403146 |
On 2026-10-14 12:53, Dan Cross wrote: > In article <11am9r9$4o6m$4@dont-email.me>, > Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 2026-10-13 22:52, Dan Cross wrote: >>> >>> Were you referring to me, Janis? Or to bart? >> >> You can identify the association of the answers by its attribution >> indent level. - Most was attributed to bart's text that was quoted. > > Sure. I was just surprised that the reply to my post was the > vehicle to reply to bart. Anyway, no worries! I'm sorry for that. I stopped reading bart's posts for various reasons rooted in his personal, um.., communication style, and the mass of his posts of, um.., peculiar content. I don't want to contribute to that flood any more. But occasionally I see that other posters take that task (or burden?) to reply to him, and reading their posts I then see also what bart wrote, and occasionally still comment on what I then see. (Going to try reducing that as well; as it's rarely worth the hassle in this specific case.) Janis PS: I've just read another long (300 lines) post you made in reply to bart. Let me express my admiration for your patience and countenance (that I'm clearly lacking in this case), and the very clear form and conclusively explained content.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 19:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11aomaj$kd6$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #403156 |
In article <11ao8k4$4o6l$5@dont-email.me>, Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote: >[snip] >PS: I've just read another long (300 lines) post you made in >reply to bart. Let me express my admiration for your patience >and countenance (that I'm clearly lacking in this case), and >the very clear form and conclusively explained content. Thank you! That's very kind of you to say. - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 11:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11al0dn$ebog$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403081 |
On 13/10/2026 08:23, Waldek Hebisch wrote: > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote: >> I thought that my comment is hard to misunderstand, but you proved >> me wrong. So I'd try to elaborate: >> >> switch() nested within loop is very common in my practice and I suppose >> in practice of everybody else. >> >> In my practice, but obviously not in practice of Tim Rentsch, it >> is sufficiently common to want to transfer control from point within >> such nested switch to point immediately following the containing loop. >> >> If break out of loop and break out of switch were different keyword, it >> would be very easy to do. >> >> But since the keyword is shared I have to use workarounds. Many of them >> were mentioned in the sub-thread. All workarounds work. They are all >> less simple and less elegant than what would have been possible if break >> keyword was not shared. > > I think there is still not clear what "common" in your text above > means. To clarify a bit, I have a non-C codebase where one can > use 'break' within equivalent of 'switch'. My gut feelings were > that such use is reasonably common (I certainly remeber such uses > in the codebase). But counting kerwords shows that I have 6053 > occurences of keyword indicating loop (some may be in comments, > but that should not affect statistics too much), 223 occurences > of 'break', 197 occurences of equivalet of 'continue', 2390 > occurences of 'return'. In this language 'return' is only > used for ealy returns, otherwise last value computed (which > may be void) is returned. > > So what those counts indicate: majority of loops is simple, that > is have no early exit. Vast majority of early exits is done > via 'return'. "Interesting" loop control is relatively rare. > Checking which 'break'-s are within equivalent of 'switch' would > require manual inspection and that would be too much work. But > reasonable guestimate to that there are tens such uses. In > a sense that is common, that is significantly more than one > case. If my guestimate is correct, then this may be nontrivial > fraction of all uses of 'break'. OTOH that is tiny fraction > of all loops. These are my stats across 3 of my non-C non-scripting apps, some 80Kloc (other apps share modules so would duplicate): Loops 997 Exit (1 level) 257 (ie. 'break' in C) Exit (All levels) 4 Exit (other) 0 Switch 814 (Looping switch 33 included also in Loops and Switch counts) Explicit return 1920 (Non-early returns are optional) So on average, 25% of all loops have early exits (your figures show about 4%). There's no analysis of whether they are inside switch or whatever, but observation yesterday suggested it was common. Switch is used so heavily (and there is Looping Switch which needs an explicit way to terminate!) then it's likely it is all mixed up. This is really the point - it shouldn't be necessary to care. The point has been made several times that loop-break clashing with switch-break is no different from a multi-level loop break (or even a multi-level switch break, whatever that even means). Well, it /is/ very different, and in my code-base, is infrequent. This is just playing down the consequences of the choices made in C. They are not serious, but they are not ideal, nor elegant, and involve workarounds that are a distraction. People should also be able to want to break out of enclosing loops from inside 'switch' without having to defend their choices!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 21:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11am99u$ul56$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403081 |
On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 07:23:40 -0000 (UTC), Waldek Hebisch wrote: > So what those counts indicate: majority of loops is simple, that is > have no early exit. Vast majority of early exits is done via > 'return'. My experience in my own C code is quite the opposite. Lots of loops have exits in the middle, leading me to use forms like “for (;;)”. I also try to avoid putting “return” anywhere other than the end of a function, to make it easier to see the flow of control. *cough* Nassi-Shneiderman diagrams *cough*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 15:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11atfif$38b7p$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #403128 |
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 07:23:40 -0000 (UTC), Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>
>> So what those counts indicate: majority of loops is simple, that is
>> have no early exit. Vast majority of early exits is done via
>> 'return'.
>
> My experience in my own C code is quite the opposite. Lots of loops
> have exits in the middle, leading me to use forms like “for (;;)”. I
> also try to avoid putting “return” anywhere other than the end of a
> function, to make it easier to see the flow of control.
Well, usually there is a lot of loops. Those with exit in the
middle are still significant.
Concernig 'return', having it in place where all work inside function
is done help me to see flow control and avoids complications. In
case of search functions it means return from the middle of the loop.
IMO possible alternatives like flag variables or break and retrun
after loop are worse.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 21:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11au5ob$3m5co$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403215 |
On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 15:24:01 -0000 (UTC), Waldek Hebisch wrote: > Concernig 'return', having it in place where all work inside > function is done help me to see flow control and avoids > complications. In case of search functions it means return from the > middle of the loop. IMO possible alternatives like flag variables or > break and retrun after loop are worse. Code tends to do a lot of dynamic resource allocation these days, and that requires cleanup. Doing a direct “return” from the middle of a function body doesn’t allow for that. Unless you use a GCC extension like “defer”, I suppose.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 21:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <OWwAS.61663$R0u.10250@fx07.iad> |
| In reply to | #403222 |
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 15:24:01 -0000 (UTC), Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>
>> Concernig 'return', having it in place where all work inside
>> function is done help me to see flow control and avoids
>> complications. In case of search functions it means return from the
>> middle of the loop. IMO possible alternatives like flag variables or
>> break and retrun after loop are worse.
>
>Code tends to do a lot of dynamic resource allocation these days, and
>that requires cleanup. Doing a direct “return” from the middle of a
>function body doesn’t allow for that.
>
>Unless you use a GCC extension like “defer”, I suppose.
Better to use the cleanup attribute (or RAII in C++).
#define RAII_CHM __attribute__((cleanup(auto_free_ptr)))
#define RAII_FILE __attribute__((cleanup(auto_close_file)))
int main(void) {
// Memory and file handles are bound to this block scope
RAII_CHM char *buffer = malloc(100);
RAII_FILE FILE *fp = fopen("example.txt", "w");
if (!buffer || !fp) {
return -1; // Even on early exit, validly opened resources are cleaned up!
}
fprintf(fp, "Hello, RAII in C!");
return 0; // Both buffer and fp are automatically freed/closed here
}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 12:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11b27js$121v2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403223 |
On 16/10/2026 23:46, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>> On Fri, 16 Oct 2026 15:24:01 -0000 (UTC), Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>>
>>> Concernig 'return', having it in place where all work inside
>>> function is done help me to see flow control and avoids
>>> complications. In case of search functions it means return from the
>>> middle of the loop. IMO possible alternatives like flag variables or
>>> break and retrun after loop are worse.
>>
>> Code tends to do a lot of dynamic resource allocation these days, and
>> that requires cleanup. Doing a direct “return” from the middle of a
>> function body doesn’t allow for that.
>>
>> Unless you use a GCC extension like “defer”, I suppose.
"defer" is not a gcc extension. You can "defer" macro, using gcc's
"cleanup" attribute (which /is/ an extension) :
<https://gustedt.gitlabpages.inria.fr/defer/>
As I understand it, "defer" is in the proposal stage and could make it
into C2y, but it is not yet in the draft standard. There are test
implementations in gcc, clang, and a couple of other compilers.
>
> Better to use the cleanup attribute (or RAII in C++).
>
> #define RAII_CHM __attribute__((cleanup(auto_free_ptr)))
> #define RAII_FILE __attribute__((cleanup(auto_close_file)))
>
> int main(void) {
> // Memory and file handles are bound to this block scope
> RAII_CHM char *buffer = malloc(100);
> RAII_FILE FILE *fp = fopen("example.txt", "w");
>
> if (!buffer || !fp) {
> return -1; // Even on early exit, validly opened resources are cleaned up!
> }
>
> fprintf(fp, "Hello, RAII in C!");
>
> return 0; // Both buffer and fp are automatically freed/closed here
> }
"defer" has a number of benefits over "cleanup", but "cleanup" has the
advantage that it is available now on gcc and clang - if portability is
not an issue.
Still, I would not write code like you show above - in C, people expect
more explicit code, and you are hiding non-standard C behaviour with
somewhat obscure names. (Obscurity is, of course, dependent on how much
you use the feature in your code.)
I'd rather have :
#define RAII(cleanup_func) __attribute__((cleanup(cleanup_func)))
RAII(auto_free_ptr) char * buffer = malloc(100);
RAII(auto_close_file) FILE * fp = fopen("example.txt", "w");
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 15:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11au6v8$3mdne$2@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #403222 |
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
[...]
> Unless you use a GCC extension like “defer”, I suppose.
There is a proposal to add "defer" (or rather "_Defer") to C,
though it doesn't appear in the latest C2y draft.
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3928.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 | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 19:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8633u3pwwd.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #403215 |
antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) writes: > Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > >> On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 07:23:40 -0000 (UTC), Waldek Hebisch wrote: >> >>> So what those counts indicate: majority of loops is simple, that is >>> have no early exit. Vast majority of early exits is done via >>> 'return'. >> >> My experience in my own C code is quite the opposite. Lots of loops >> have exits in the middle, leading me to use forms like ?for (;;)?. I >> also try to avoid putting ?return? anywhere other than the end of a >> function, to make it easier to see the flow of control. > > Well, usually there is a lot of loops. Those with exit in the > middle are still significant. > > Concernig 'return', having it in place where all work inside function > is done help me to see flow control and avoids complications. In > case of search functions it means return from the middle of the loop. > IMO possible alternatives like flag variables or break and retrun > after loop are worse. I rarely use 'break' to exit a loop. Part of this is that I try to write standard loops so that they complete as part of the loop test (i.e., in while() or for() control expressions). That isn't the whole story though so let me talk about 'return'. Most of the functions I write have exactly one return, at the end of the function. I estimate this pattern accounts for around 85% of all functions, let's say plus or minus 5%. Sometimes functions have early returns for errors or exceptional conditions. Early returns are easily seen to lie outside the main body of function processing so they don't interfere with understanding what the rest of the function is doing or how it works. A fairly common sub-pattern are functions most of whose body is a switch() statement, with all of the switch() cases being a simple return. It does sometimes happen that a function will have a loop with a return in the middle, and also a return at the end for what to do if the loop terminates. To me having an in-loop return looks better than using an assignment and a break. A fairly rare but important pattern is what I might call vectoring or decomposition. Here the function body serves to distinguish and separate out different regimes of subprocessing. To continue processing in a particular regime, a return is used not to directly yield a value but rather to call a further function to handle that sub-domain. The benefit here is both to keep function bodies small and to allow re-use of commonly called sub-functions. Two aspects are important for having these different styles work together. One is that it's easy to distinguish the different kinds of patterns, and by far the most simple pattern is the most common. The other is to be sure to keep function bodies small. Keeping function bodies small goes a long way in making them easy to understand, which obviously is a key property in writing good code. Also keeping function bodies small effectively prevents mixing different styles in a single function, serving to reinforce point one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-20 00:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11b6bsj$ctsd$1@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #403249 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
> antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) writes:
>
>> Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 07:23:40 -0000 (UTC), Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>>>
>>>> So what those counts indicate: majority of loops is simple, that is
>>>> have no early exit. Vast majority of early exits is done via
>>>> 'return'.
>>>
>>> My experience in my own C code is quite the opposite. Lots of loops
>>> have exits in the middle, leading me to use forms like ?for (;;)?. I
>>> also try to avoid putting ?return? anywhere other than the end of a
>>> function, to make it easier to see the flow of control.
>>
>> Well, usually there is a lot of loops. Those with exit in the
>> middle are still significant.
>>
>> Concernig 'return', having it in place where all work inside function
>> is done help me to see flow control and avoids complications. In
>> case of search functions it means return from the middle of the loop.
>> IMO possible alternatives like flag variables or break and retrun
>> after loop are worse.
>
> I rarely use 'break' to exit a loop. Part of this is that I try to
> write standard loops so that they complete as part of the loop test
> (i.e., in while() or for() control expressions). That isn't the
> whole story though so let me talk about 'return'.
I counted various constructs in a small suite of 2 programs (1306
lines in 3 files). There are 4 breaks outside switches and 32
loops in total. My gut feeling is that this proportion is
reasonable close to typical in my code. For comparison, there
are 67 functions and 70 'if'-s.
> Most of the functions I write have exactly one return, at the end of
> the function. I estimate this pattern accounts for around 85% of
> all functions, let's say plus or minus 5%.
In code above about half of functions is 'void' and there are 34
explicit returns (of which at least 2 are early returns).
> Sometimes functions have early returns for errors or exceptional
> conditions.
Code above contains 16 occurences of 'exit(1)'. One of those is
in a macro that is used 10 times, so actually there are 25 places
which call 'exit(1)'. That is related to the programs being
simple utilities, there is no attempt to error recovery, on error
programs simply print error message and exit.
> Early returns are easily seen to lie outside the main
> body of function processing so they don't interfere with
> understanding what the rest of the function is doing or how it
> works.
>
> A fairly common sub-pattern are functions most of whose body is a
> switch() statement, with all of the switch() cases being a simple
> return.
Code above has 2 switches, both are in parsing functions, where
cases either move to next state or signal error. Parsing functions
also open file and close it when finished and return data structure
with parsed info.
> It does sometimes happen that a function will have a loop with a
> return in the middle, and also a return at the end for what to do if
> the loop terminates. To me having an in-loop return looks better
> than using an assignment and a break.
>
> A fairly rare but important pattern is what I might call vectoring
> or decomposition. Here the function body serves to distinguish and
> separate out different regimes of subprocessing. To continue
> processing in a particular regime, a return is used not to directly
> yield a value but rather to call a further function to handle that
> sub-domain. The benefit here is both to keep function bodies small
> and to allow re-use of commonly called sub-functions.
>
> Two aspects are important for having these different styles work
> together. One is that it's easy to distinguish the different kinds
> of patterns, and by far the most simple pattern is the most common.
> The other is to be sure to keep function bodies small. Keeping
> function bodies small goes a long way in making them easy to
> understand, which obviously is a key property in writing good code.
> Also keeping function bodies small effectively prevents mixing
> different styles in a single function, serving to reinforce point
> one.
I think that in general my C code has similar characteristics. But
let me note that while I have a lot of small functions, I also have
some which are bigger. I suspect that 10% or more of my code is
in functions that are bigger then 30 lines. Such functions
frequently have several variables and there is setup stage to
initialize things, actual processing and final part (cleanups,
possibly extraction of result). Stages are clearly sepatated
by their position inside function, OTOH are strongly coupled due
to use of variables. My feeling here is that in case of strongly
coupled code with no reusable parts keeping it inside single
function is more managable than trying to split it into smaller
functions.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-20 16:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86pkx4nf2f.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #403357 |
antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) writes: > Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote: > >> antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) writes: >> >>> Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 07:23:40 -0000 (UTC), Waldek Hebisch wrote: >>>> >>>>> So what those counts indicate: majority of loops is simple, that is >>>>> have no early exit. Vast majority of early exits is done via >>>>> 'return'. >>>> >>>> My experience in my own C code is quite the opposite. Lots of loops >>>> have exits in the middle, leading me to use forms like ?for (;;)?. I >>>> also try to avoid putting ?return? anywhere other than the end of a >>>> function, to make it easier to see the flow of control. >>> >>> Well, usually there is a lot of loops. Those with exit in the >>> middle are still significant. >>> >>> Concernig 'return', having it in place where all work inside function >>> is done help me to see flow control and avoids complications. In >>> case of search functions it means return from the middle of the loop. >>> IMO possible alternatives like flag variables or break and retrun >>> after loop are worse. >> >> I rarely use 'break' to exit a loop. Part of this is that I try to >> write standard loops so that they complete as part of the loop test >> (i.e., in while() or for() control expressions). That isn't the >> whole story though so let me talk about 'return'. > > I counted various constructs in a small suite of 2 programs (1306 > lines in 3 files). There are 4 breaks outside switches and 32 > loops in total. My gut feeling is that this proportion is > reasonable close to typical in my code. For comparison, there > are 67 functions and 70 'if'-s. Probably that is close to what I see for my own code, if we count 'return' out of a loop. >> Most of the functions I write have exactly one return, at the end of >> the function. I estimate this pattern accounts for around 85% of >> all functions, let's say plus or minus 5%. > > In code above about half of functions is 'void' and there are 34 > explicit returns (of which at least 2 are early returns). I almost never use void functions. I'm used to a functional style, and it's natural to return something in almost all cases. >> Sometimes functions have early returns for errors or exceptional >> conditions. > > Code above contains 16 occurences of 'exit(1)'. One of those is > in a macro that is used 10 times, so actually there are 25 places > which call 'exit(1)'. That is related to the programs being > simple utilities, there is no attempt to error recovery, on error > programs simply print error message and exit. okay. I don't use exit() often but I have no problem with that. >> Early returns are easily seen to lie outside the main >> body of function processing so they don't interfere with >> understanding what the rest of the function is doing or how it >> works. >> >> A fairly common sub-pattern are functions most of whose body is a >> switch() statement, with all of the switch() cases being a simple >> return. > > Code above has 2 switches, both are in parsing functions, where > cases either move to next state or signal error. Parsing functions > also open file and close it when finished and return data structure > with parsed info. In other kinds of code I might use switch() more often. Maybe I can try putting together a small application where switch() is more likely and see what I get. >> It does sometimes happen that a function will have a loop with a >> return in the middle, and also a return at the end for what to do if >> the loop terminates. To me having an in-loop return looks better >> than using an assignment and a break. >> >> A fairly rare but important pattern is what I might call vectoring >> or decomposition. Here the function body serves to distinguish and >> separate out different regimes of subprocessing. To continue >> processing in a particular regime, a return is used not to directly >> yield a value but rather to call a further function to handle that >> sub-domain. The benefit here is both to keep function bodies small >> and to allow re-use of commonly called sub-functions. >> >> Two aspects are important for having these different styles work >> together. One is that it's easy to distinguish the different kinds >> of patterns, and by far the most simple pattern is the most common. >> The other is to be sure to keep function bodies small. Keeping >> function bodies small goes a long way in making them easy to >> understand, which obviously is a key property in writing good code. >> Also keeping function bodies small effectively prevents mixing >> different styles in a single function, serving to reinforce point >> one. > > I think that in general my C code has similar characteristics. Yes it sounds that way. > But > let me note that while I have a lot of small functions, I also have > some which are bigger. I suspect that 10% or more of my code is > in functions that are bigger then 30 lines. Such functions > frequently have several variables and there is setup stage to > initialize things, actual processing and final part (cleanups, > possibly extraction of result). Stages are clearly sepatated > by their position inside function, OTOH are strongly coupled due > to use of variables. My feeling here is that in case of strongly > coupled code with no reusable parts keeping it inside single > function is more managable than trying to split it into smaller > functions. It's natural for me not to let functions get too large, which means more than about 60 lines of code. But beyond that wanting to write small functions doesn't mean only tiny functions. My "10% or more" function size may be a little smaller than yours, but not much smaller. Also I observe empirically an interesting property, which is that if we multiply the number of functions of size N by N, the result is roughly constant across the range of function sizes. So for example if there are three functions whose bodies have 50 lines then there are roughly 50 functions whose bodies have three lines. And that holds approximately across the whole range of function sizes (with a standard deviation about half the average). So there are lots of little functions but also functions of sizes in the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s. Does that sound similar to your own code?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 07:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86zewhhdep.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #403053 |
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: > On Mon, 12 Oct 2026 21:09:25 +0200 > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >> On 12/10/2026 21:02, Michael S wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> If I have misunderstood, I would love to be corrected. In a number >> of my posts I said I was not sure what you were talking about, and >> would need more explanation. > > I thought that my comment is hard to misunderstand, but you proved > me wrong. So I'd try to elaborate: > > switch() nested within loop is very common in my practice and I suppose > in practice of everybody else. > > In my practice, but obviously not in practice of Tim Rentsch, it > is sufficiently common to want to transfer control from point within > such nested switch to point immediately following the containing loop. Let me clarify my earlier comment. I'm not surprised that people routinely use switch() inside of loops. What did surprise me is the statement that wanting to break out of the loop from inside the switch() is "very common". Not happens occasionally; not happens commonly or even just sufficiently commonly; not happens routinely; but "very common". I am wondering now how common it actually is, for switch() in general and for switch() inside of a loop. Is it one in a hundred? One in ten? One in two? More than that? I asked for an example because I am curious about what the proximate cause of such commonality might be. Is it a general style matter? Is it that you are used to certain patterns of local control flow? Is it that some use cases are more common in the kinds of programs you deal with? It would be good to get some data here, even just ad hoc data. In my own experience, wanting to escape multiple levels (including the case of provoking a loop exit from inside a switch()) doesn't happen often enough to merit considering a language change. But I would like to know more about the experiences of other people. I'm reminded of a quote from (if memory serves) Tony Hoare, about language design. Paraphrasing: A programming language should not reflect the union of all the features proposed by its designers; rather it should reflect the union of the designers' prejudices about what features should NOT be put into the language.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 16:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11aljoo$m15u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403105 |
On 13/10/2026 15:40, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> I thought that my comment is hard to misunderstand, but you proved
>> me wrong. So I'd try to elaborate:
>>
>> switch() nested within loop is very common in my practice and I suppose
>> in practice of everybody else.
>>
>> In my practice, but obviously not in practice of Tim Rentsch, it
>> is sufficiently common to want to transfer control from point within
>> such nested switch to point immediately following the containing loop.
>
> Let me clarify my earlier comment. I'm not surprised that people
> routinely use switch() inside of loops. What did surprise me is the
> statement that wanting to break out of the loop from inside the
> switch() is "very common". Not happens occasionally; not happens
> commonly or even just sufficiently commonly; not happens routinely;
> but "very common". I am wondering now how common it actually is,
> for switch() in general
For switch in general is not meaningful: since this is about breaking
out of a loop: a loop needs to be involved!
> and for switch() inside of a loop. Is it
> one in a hundred? One in ten? One in two? More than that?
These are some stats for 5 of my non-C projects:
All All Of which,
Project Loops Breaks Breaks inside Switch
A 538 131 72
B 438 103 62
C 412 132 58
D 216 57 34
E 47 20 7
These are averages. It is conceivable all those 72 breaks on the first
line are within one Switch statement, but it is unlikely.
I can't do the same exercise for C examples, since that language doesn't
allow breaks inside 'switch'. (All breaks I'm talking about are
loop-breaks.)
Not sure what percentages you are after: how many loops have at least
one break within switch? That might be around 1 in 7 (14%).
What proportion of all breaks are inside switch? That would be about half.
> I asked for an example because I am curious about what the proximate
> cause of such commonality might be. Is it a general style matter?
Since this is something C doesn't directly support, getting stats is
tricky. People will use workarounds and you'd have to analyse those to
try and infer what they're trying to achieve. (Humans have to do the
same exercise; that is the problem.)
My view is that using distinct keywords for loop-break and switch-break
(accepting that the language wants the latter) would have had pretty
much zero costs, but worthwhile benefits.
> In my own experience, wanting to escape multiple levels (including
> the case of provoking a loop exit from inside a switch())
No it doesn't, but this is not about that; here we just want to break
out of one loop level!
> I'm reminded of a quote from (if memory serves) Tony Hoare, about
> language design. Paraphrasing: A programming language should not
> reflect the union of all the features proposed by its designers;
> rather it should reflect the union of the designers' prejudices
> about what features should NOT be put into the language.
Perhaps C could have done without switch-break then.
A very rough survey suggests that about 1% of lines of code in a project
are purely switch-breaks. How many billions of lines of C are there...?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 09:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86qzhth98c.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #403109 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 13/10/2026 15:40, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: >> > > >>> I thought that my comment is hard to misunderstand, but you proved >>> me wrong. So I'd try to elaborate: >>> >>> switch() nested within loop is very common in my practice and I suppose >>> in practice of everybody else. >>> >>> In my practice, but obviously not in practice of Tim Rentsch, it >>> is sufficiently common to want to transfer control from point within >>> such nested switch to point immediately following the containing loop. >> >> Let me clarify my earlier comment. I'm not surprised that people >> routinely use switch() inside of loops. What did surprise me is the >> statement that wanting to break out of the loop from inside the >> switch() is "very common". Not happens occasionally; not happens >> commonly or even just sufficiently commonly; not happens routinely; >> but "very common". I am wondering now how common it actually is, >> for switch() in general > > For switch in general is not meaningful: since this is about breaking > out of a loop: a loop needs to be involved! Please don't make the mistake of thinking the question I am asking is the same as the question you are interested in answering.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 24 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 24 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web