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 328 — 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 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 Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-11 04:26 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 13:35 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-11 06:13 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 14:51 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-11 15:33 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> - 2026-10-11 09:01 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-11 19:17 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 18:57 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 14:28 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-11 23:02 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-11 16:29 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-12 04:03 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-12 22:02 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 21:09 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-12 22:31 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-12 22:32 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 22:05 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 23:14 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-13 07:23 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-13 12:12 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 11:26 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2026-10-13 12:10 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-13 06:55 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-13 13:33 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 13:41 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-13 14:38 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-13 18:04 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-13 20:52 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 22:24 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-14 00:03 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 10:53 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-14 17:54 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 19:48 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 11:16 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-13 21:54 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-10-16 15:24 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-16 21:42 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-16 21:46 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 15:03 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-13 07:40 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 16:46 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-13 09:10 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 18:15 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 18:27 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-14 01:50 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 10:58 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-13 22:54 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-13 16:45 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 18:34 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-14 05:17 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 13:46 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 07:05 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 14:37 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 16:12 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 16:32 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-12 19:05 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 19:15 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 16:43 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 16:45 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 23:46 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 00:56 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 17:58 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 20:38 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 19:52 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-12 22:56 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 21:57 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-12 21:21 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-12 22:46 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-13 09:27 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-13 12:18 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 11:33 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-13 00:25 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 22:20 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 17:02 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-13 01:53 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-13 03:54 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-13 10:52 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-13 23:16 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 18:44 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-12 17:33 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 00:21 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 20:40 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 03:59 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 21:35 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 11:27 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 12:17 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 12:38 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 16:49 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-14 19:30 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-14 23:28 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-10-14 21:30 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 21:56 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-14 21:59 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-15 01:26 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-15 12:01 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-15 11:45 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-15 15:57 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-15 18:10 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-16 02:42 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-15 20:42 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-15 23:57 +0300
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-15 23:22 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-16 12:40 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-17 00:01 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 16:53 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-10-17 11:09 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-17 13:11 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement 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 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 10 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 17 Next page →
| 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 | 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 | 2026-10-13 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]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 18:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11alovc$o7ef$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403112 |
On 13/10/2026 17:10, Tim Rentsch wrote: > 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. This is what you said: > What did surprise me is the > statement that wanting to break out of the loop from inside the > switch() is "very common". So you're talking about breaking out of a loop from inside switch? > 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, 'it' is still breaking out a loop from inside switch? > for switch() in general > and for switch() inside of a loop. So if this covers 'breaking out of a loop from inside switch', then what on earth is meant by: > for switch() in general ? Please enlighten us.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 18:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11amlq9$12efg$1@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #403109 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> 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.
I agree, and I don't think that's particularly controversial.
The point on which we disagree is what can and should be done about
it now.
--
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 | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 01:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11amn48$7ell$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #403135 |
In article <11amlq9$12efg$1@kst.eternal-september.org>, Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote: >bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >[...] >> 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. > >I agree, and I don't think that's particularly controversial. > >The point on which we disagree is what can and should be done about >it now. The answer to that is: Invent new languages with C-like syntax, but better. You can't do anything about C, but you can do better as long as you call the result something else. Like C#. Like C++. Like Swift. -- People seem to think that Youtube (and Facebook and Twitter and so on) is (are) some sort of resource created for the public good. Why they delude themselves into believing this is beyond my ability to comprehend. Usenet will always be here. Longer than people remember what port 80 was for.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-14 10:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11ann95$4sj$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #403138 |
In article <11amn48$7ell$1@news.xmission.com>, Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote: >In article <11amlq9$12efg$1@kst.eternal-september.org>, >Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote: >>bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>[...] >>> 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. >> >>I agree, and I don't think that's particularly controversial. >> >>The point on which we disagree is what can and should be done about >>it now. > >The answer to that is: Invent new languages with C-like syntax, but better. >You can't do anything about C, but you can do better as long as you call >the result something else. > >Like C#. Like C++. Like Swift. I mean...we've got a ton of those now. Go, Rust, Zig, Switch, and on and on. We don't really need to invent new languages. OCaml, Haskell, Julia, ad infinitum. In my view, the bigger impediments to moving off of C as the dominant systems programming language are two fold: 1. providing a clean path from C to the new language(s), and 2. overcoming the enormous inertia of decades of defaulting to C for systems programs. I love C, but I'm not in love with C anymore, and if I am starting a new project these days, it's not the first thing I reach for anymore. - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 22:54 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20261013225449.00005562@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #403105 |
On Tue, 13 Oct 2026 07:40:30 -0700 Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote: > 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? > Of course, I never gathered exact statistics. My guts feeling is that among switches nested within loop it could be as high as one out of five. Not one out of five case labels, but one out of five switch statements. > 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? bart gave decent example. My own use cases are mostly related to processing of incoming network messages that are distinguished by opcode at the beginning of the message. But not just that. Generally, I like small functions that return specialized enum as result code. When such functions used within loop, it often leads to pattern in question. > 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. Sorry, right now I have no time for doing such analysis. It is not trivial exactly because 'C' has no such feature. So I don't know how to automate a search within codebases. > > 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. In this particular case Ritchie did not have to innovate in order to create this feature. Quite opposite, as others (Keith ?) mentioned, he had to innovate in order to merge distinct break-loop and break-switch features of ancestor language into unified break.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web