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 | 2026-10-26 21:32 +0100 |
| Articles | 16 on this page of 516 — 25 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 fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 17:19 +0200
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 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-22 08:57 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-22 12:56 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-22 17:00 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-22 16:54 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-22 21:09 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 12:46 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-23 09:37 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 14:21 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-23 22:40 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 18:33 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-24 22:26 +0000
Modelling self/this? (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-25 00:56 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 16:38 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-24 12:58 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 21:42 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2026-10-25 10:51 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 13:54 -0700
Re: Case-Sensitivity (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-25 20:30 +0000
Re: Case-Sensitivity (was Re: Taming The Switch-Statement) Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-26 10:28 -0600
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 16:42 -0700
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-22 18:38 -0600
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2026-10-23 04:23 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 01:09 -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
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-22 09:51 +0200
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 13:07 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 12:11 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 13:20 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 14:16 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 17:03 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 16:32 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 17:37 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 16:42 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-10-26 19:39 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 20:03 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 17:45 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 17:00 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 18:06 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 18:11 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 18:37 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 19:03 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 20:39 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2026-10-26 19:59 +0000
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 21:13 +0100
Re: Taming The Switch-Statement fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2026-10-26 21:32 +0100
Page 26 of 26 — ← Prev page 1 … 24 25 [26]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 17:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bntk0$nsbo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403558 |
bartc pisze:
> On 26/10/2026 12:20, fir wrote:
>> bartc pisze:
>>> On 26/10/2026 12:07, fir wrote:
>>>> fir pisze:
>>>>> if {} or if {} or if {} else {}
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> this form in fact is not bad, it simply showst two things
>>>>
>>>> 1) you may use or outside the if clause (if this () can be named
>>>> clause)
>>>>
>>>> 2) else in fact work on logical group but ias sole if is alos a case
>>>> of logical group so else work on it sole in special case
>>>>
>>>> otherwiste thse keywords here if or and else are quite 'legit'
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> if () {}
>>>> or if () {}
>>>> or if() {}
>>>> else {}
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> seems quite legit and it seem to ba a switch
>>> Excellent. A great thing about this is, this can also be legal C,
>>> that works now, if you just precede with this:
>>>
>>> #define or else
>>>
>> this wouldnt work imo as far as im aware becouse this last else dont
>> work on "group'
>
> This works fine:
>
> #define or else
>
> for (int i=0; i<=5; ++i)
> if (i==1) {puts("One");}
> or if (i==2) {puts("Two");}
> or if (i==3) {puts("Three");}
> else {puts("Other");}
>
> Output is:
>
> Other
> One
> Two
> Three
> Other
> Other
>
> The point is you eventually came up with syntax that is actually just C
> but using 'or' in place of 'else'.
>
>> the last else is what i name "otherwise" (its else in all other case"
> You seem to have named it 'else' in your example. In any case it would
> just be a slightly different choice of keyword; it buys you very little.
>
maybe try with like
case x%2==0 //2 4 6 8 10 12
case x%3==0 //3 6 9 12
default // 1 5 7 11 13
the default should run if none of above cases catch (as i remember coz i
dont use switch) and thse cases should catch each time
im maybe talkong about some more general switch here but this general
(abstract) it is more important then normal one - as thsi general covers
various possible cases
using if or you can implement i it
if(x%2==0) {}
or if(x%3==0) {}
else {}
without or (or something analogic) as i understand if im not wrong you cant
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 16:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11bnvbq$olbj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403561 |
On 26/10/2026 16:03, fir wrote:
> bartc pisze:
>> On 26/10/2026 12:20, fir wrote:
>>> bartc pisze:
>>>> On 26/10/2026 12:07, fir wrote:
>>>>> fir pisze:
>>>>>> if {} or if {} or if {} else {}
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> this form in fact is not bad, it simply showst two things
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) you may use or outside the if clause (if this () can be named
>>>>> clause)
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) else in fact work on logical group but ias sole if is alos a
>>>>> case of logical group so else work on it sole in special case
>>>>>
>>>>> otherwiste thse keywords here if or and else are quite 'legit'
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> if () {}
>>>>> or if () {}
>>>>> or if() {}
>>>>> else {}
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> seems quite legit and it seem to ba a switch
>>>> Excellent. A great thing about this is, this can also be legal C,
>>>> that works now, if you just precede with this:
>>>>
>>>> #define or else
>>>>
>>> this wouldnt work imo as far as im aware becouse this last else dont
>>> work on "group'
>>
>> This works fine:
>>
>> #define or else
>>
>> for (int i=0; i<=5; ++i)
>> if (i==1) {puts("One");}
>> or if (i==2) {puts("Two");}
>> or if (i==3) {puts("Three");}
>> else {puts("Other");}
>>
>> Output is:
>>
>> Other
>> One
>> Two
>> Three
>> Other
>> Other
>>
>> The point is you eventually came up with syntax that is actually just
>> C but using 'or' in place of 'else'.
>>
>>> the last else is what i name "otherwise" (its else in all other case"
>> You seem to have named it 'else' in your example. In any case it would
>> just be a slightly different choice of keyword; it buys you very little.
>>
> maybe try with like
>
> case x%2==0 //2 4 6 8 10 12
> case x%3==0 //3 6 9 12
No, cases '6' and '12' are also true for x%2==0. Unless you want these
to be non-exclusive?
> default // 1 5 7 11 13
>
>
> the default should run if none of above cases catch (as i remember coz i
> dont use switch) and thse cases should catch each time
OK. C doesn't have a direct syntax for this. But it does have if-else
chains for precisely this job. What is the problem with that? You can
write it like this if you like:
if (0)
else if (x%2==0) {}
else if (x%3==0) {}
if you want consistency. There's no point in creating a slightly
different syntax for the same thing.
> im maybe talkong about some more general switch here
What does 'switch' mean to you? It seems that every day it is something
with more and more capabilities and it gets more ambiguous. At some
point it will its own AI to divine your intentions.
but this general
> (abstract) it is more important then normal one - as thsi general covers
> various possible cases
>
> using if or you can implement i it
>
> if(x%2==0) {}
> or if(x%3==0) {}
> else {}
>
> without or (or something analogic) as i understand if im not wrong you cant
You seem fixated on that 'or'. Either use 'else', or create 'or' as an
alias as I suggested.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 17:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bnvl2$opb9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403563 |
bartc pisze:
> On 26/10/2026 16:03, fir wrote:
>> bartc pisze:
>>> On 26/10/2026 12:20, fir wrote:
>>>> bartc pisze:
>>>>> On 26/10/2026 12:07, fir wrote:
>>>>>> fir pisze:
>>>>>>> if {} or if {} or if {} else {}
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this form in fact is not bad, it simply showst two things
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) you may use or outside the if clause (if this () can be named
>>>>>> clause)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) else in fact work on logical group but ias sole if is alos a
>>>>>> case of logical group so else work on it sole in special case
>>>>>>
>>>>>> otherwiste thse keywords here if or and else are quite 'legit'
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if () {}
>>>>>> or if () {}
>>>>>> or if() {}
>>>>>> else {}
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> seems quite legit and it seem to ba a switch
>>>>> Excellent. A great thing about this is, this can also be legal C,
>>>>> that works now, if you just precede with this:
>>>>>
>>>>> #define or else
>>>>>
>>>> this wouldnt work imo as far as im aware becouse this last else dont
>>>> work on "group'
>>>
>>> This works fine:
>>>
>>> #define or else
>>>
>>> for (int i=0; i<=5; ++i)
>>> if (i==1) {puts("One");}
>>> or if (i==2) {puts("Two");}
>>> or if (i==3) {puts("Three");}
>>> else {puts("Other");}
>>>
>>> Output is:
>>>
>>> Other
>>> One
>>> Two
>>> Three
>>> Other
>>> Other
>>>
>>> The point is you eventually came up with syntax that is actually just
>>> C but using 'or' in place of 'else'.
>>>
>>>> the last else is what i name "otherwise" (its else in all other case"
>>> You seem to have named it 'else' in your example. In any case it
>>> would just be a slightly different choice of keyword; it buys you
>>> very little.
>>>
>> maybe try with like
>>
>> case x%2==0 //2 4 6 8 10 12
>> case x%3==0 //3 6 9 12
>
> No, cases '6' and '12' are also true for x%2==0. Unless you want these
> to be non-exclusive?
>
>> default // 1 5 7 11 13
>>
>>
>> the default should run if none of above cases catch (as i remember coz
>> i dont use switch) and thse cases should catch each time
>
> OK. C doesn't have a direct syntax for this. But it does have if-else
> chains for precisely this job. What is the problem with that? You can
> write it like this if you like:
>
> if (0)
> else if (x%2==0) {}
> else if (x%3==0) {}
you want it the above to pront "divides by 2" "divides by 3" for 6 and
12 "divides by 2" for 4 8 and 'divided by 3" for 2 9 in case it not
divides by 2 or 3 pronts "no divides "
this above will not work for 6 for example as it only will prit "divides
by 2"
>
> if you want consistency. There's no point in creating a slightly
> different syntax for the same thing.
>
>> im maybe talkong about some more general switch here
>
> What does 'switch' mean to you? It seems that every day it is something
> with more and more capabilities and it gets more ambiguous. At some
> point it will its own AI to divine your intentions.
>
> but this general
>> (abstract) it is more important then normal one - as thsi general
>> covers various possible cases
>>
>> using if or you can implement i it
>>
>> if(x%2==0) {}
>> or if(x%3==0) {}
>> else {}
>>
>> without or (or something analogic) as i understand if im not wrong you
>> cant
> You seem fixated on that 'or'. Either use 'else', or create 'or' as an
> alias as I suggested.
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 16:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11bnvug$otdl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403566 |
On 26/10/2026 16:37, fir wrote:
> bartc pisze:
>> On 26/10/2026 16:03, fir wrote:
>>> bartc pisze:
>>>> On 26/10/2026 12:20, fir wrote:
>>>>> bartc pisze:
>>>>>> On 26/10/2026 12:07, fir wrote:
>>>>>>> fir pisze:
>>>>>>>> if {} or if {} or if {} else {}
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> this form in fact is not bad, it simply showst two things
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) you may use or outside the if clause (if this () can be named
>>>>>>> clause)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) else in fact work on logical group but ias sole if is alos a
>>>>>>> case of logical group so else work on it sole in special case
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> otherwiste thse keywords here if or and else are quite 'legit'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if () {}
>>>>>>> or if () {}
>>>>>>> or if() {}
>>>>>>> else {}
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> seems quite legit and it seem to ba a switch
>>>>>> Excellent. A great thing about this is, this can also be legal C,
>>>>>> that works now, if you just precede with this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #define or else
>>>>>>
>>>>> this wouldnt work imo as far as im aware becouse this last else
>>>>> dont work on "group'
>>>>
>>>> This works fine:
>>>>
>>>> #define or else
>>>>
>>>> for (int i=0; i<=5; ++i)
>>>> if (i==1) {puts("One");}
>>>> or if (i==2) {puts("Two");}
>>>> or if (i==3) {puts("Three");}
>>>> else {puts("Other");}
>>>>
>>>> Output is:
>>>>
>>>> Other
>>>> One
>>>> Two
>>>> Three
>>>> Other
>>>> Other
>>>>
>>>> The point is you eventually came up with syntax that is actually
>>>> just C but using 'or' in place of 'else'.
>>>>
>>>>> the last else is what i name "otherwise" (its else in all other case"
>>>> You seem to have named it 'else' in your example. In any case it
>>>> would just be a slightly different choice of keyword; it buys you
>>>> very little.
>>>>
>>> maybe try with like
>>>
>>> case x%2==0 //2 4 6 8 10 12
>>> case x%3==0 //3 6 9 12
>>
>> No, cases '6' and '12' are also true for x%2==0. Unless you want these
>> to be non-exclusive?
>>
>>> default // 1 5 7 11 13
>>>
>>>
>>> the default should run if none of above cases catch (as i remember
>>> coz i dont use switch) and thse cases should catch each time
>>
>> OK. C doesn't have a direct syntax for this. But it does have if-else
>> chains for precisely this job. What is the problem with that? You can
>> write it like this if you like:
>>
>> if (0)
>> else if (x%2==0) {}
>> else if (x%3==0) {}
>
> you want it the above to pront "divides by 2" "divides by 3" for 6 and
> 12 "divides by 2" for 4 8 and 'divided by 3" for 2 9 in case it not
> divides by 2 or 3 pronts "no divides "
>
> this above will not work for 6 for example as it only will prit "divides
> by 2"
So, non-exclusive. That is not clear from your case{} case{} syntax.
Then it's even simpler:
if (x%2==0) {}
if (x%3==0) {}
Here it is clear they are non-exclusive.
You're also in luck: this is exactly how C works now!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 19:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bo6pv$36mvl$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403567 |
On 2026-10-26 17:42, bartc wrote:
> On 26/10/2026 16:37, fir wrote:
>> bartc pisze:
>>> On 26/10/2026 16:03, fir wrote:
>>>> bartc pisze:
>>>>> On 26/10/2026 12:20, fir wrote:
>>>>>> bartc pisze:
>>>>>>> On 26/10/2026 12:07, fir wrote:
>>>>>>>> fir pisze:
>>>>>>>>> if {} or if {} or if {} else {}
[...]
>>>>>>>> if () {}
>>>>>>>> or if () {}
>>>>>>>> or if() {}
>>>>>>>> else {}
[...]
>>>>> #define or else
>>>>>
>>>>> for (int i=0; i<=5; ++i)
>>>>> if (i==1) {puts("One");}
>>>>> or if (i==2) {puts("Two");}
>>>>> or if (i==3) {puts("Three");}
>>>>> else {puts("Other");}
[...]
>>>> case x%2==0 //2 4 6 8 10 12
>>>> case x%3==0 //3 6 9 12
>>>> default // 1 5 7 11 13
[...]
>>> if (0)
>>> else if (x%2==0) {}
>>> else if (x%3==0) {}
[...]
> if (x%2==0) {}
> if (x%3==0) {}
>
> Here it is clear they are non-exclusive.
>
> You're also in luck: this is exactly how C works now!
I'm not sure what fir actually wants; I cannot decipher his writings
quoted by you. But, given that he not yet seems satisfied with your
replies and suggestions, could it, by any chance, be that what he
wants is some non-deterministic construct like Dijkstra's Guards?
I.e., that with two guards 'x%2==0' and 'x%3==0' and an input of "6"
only _one_ of the two gets _arbitrarily_ triggered?
(Otherwise his post appears quite pointless to me.)
Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 20:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bo85p$sga7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403574 |
Janis Papanagnou pisze:
> On 2026-10-26 17:42, bartc wrote:
>> On 26/10/2026 16:37, fir wrote:
>>> bartc pisze:
>>>> On 26/10/2026 16:03, fir wrote:
>>>>> bartc pisze:
>>>>>> On 26/10/2026 12:20, fir wrote:
>>>>>>> bartc pisze:
>>>>>>>> On 26/10/2026 12:07, fir wrote:
>>>>>>>>> fir pisze:
>>>>>>>>>> if {} or if {} or if {} else {}
> [...]
>>>>>>>>> if () {}
>>>>>>>>> or if () {}
>>>>>>>>> or if() {}
>>>>>>>>> else {}
> [...]
>>>>>> #define or else
>>>>>>
>>>>>> for (int i=0; i<=5; ++i)
>>>>>> if (i==1) {puts("One");}
>>>>>> or if (i==2) {puts("Two");}
>>>>>> or if (i==3) {puts("Three");}
>>>>>> else {puts("Other");}
> [...]
>>>>> case x%2==0 //2 4 6 8 10 12
>>>>> case x%3==0 //3 6 9 12
>>>>> default // 1 5 7 11 13
> [...]
>>>> if (0)
>>>> else if (x%2==0) {}
>>>> else if (x%3==0) {}
> [...]
>> if (x%2==0) {}
>> if (x%3==0) {}
>>
>> Here it is clear they are non-exclusive.
>>
>> You're also in luck: this is exactly how C works now!
>
> I'm not sure what fir actually wants; I cannot decipher his writings
> quoted by you. But, given that he not yet seems satisfied with your
> replies and suggestions, could it, by any chance, be that what he
> wants is some non-deterministic construct like Dijkstra's Guards?
>
> I.e., that with two guards 'x%2==0' and 'x%3==0' and an input of "6"
> only _one_ of the two gets _arbitrarily_ triggered?
>
> (Otherwise his post appears quite pointless to me.)
>
> Janis
>
i quite defined the problem see the simple program
for(int i=0; i<20; i++)
{
printf("\n %d,i);
if(x%2==0)
printf("\n divides by 2");
or if(x%3==0)
printf("\n divides by 3");
else
printf("\n no divides (by 2 or 3)");
}
keyword or resloves problem here the problem is if you add or the else
works on grpup of previous ifs
here in cases
0 or 0 else {}
1 or 0 else {}
0 or 1 else {}
1 or 1 else {}
else works on fales so here olse works like default
in switch only on all zeros
write such above program without or so it giver the desired result
1
no divides (by 2 or 3)
2
divides by 2
3
divides by 3
4
divides by 2
5
no divides (by 2 or 3)
6
divides by 2
divides by 3
7
no divides (by 2 or 3)
8
divides by 2
9
divides by 3
10
divides by 2
11
no divides (by 2 or 3)
12
divides by 2
divides by 3
13
no divides (by 2 or 3)
14
divides by 2
15
divides by 3
16
divides by 2
17
no divides (by 2 or 3)
18
divides by 2
divides by 3
19
no divides (by 2 or 3)
my thoughts are general as o abstract switch concept and its a bit
multidimensional ;c maybe but specifically
ut shows that if and elses not cover all logical cases when
if you add such or and and (or some different analogies) those cases
would be covered
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 17:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bo02r$otr5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403563 |
bartc pisze:
>> without or (or something analogic) as i understand if im not wrong you
>> cant
> You seem fixated on that 'or'. Either use 'else', or create 'or' as an
> alias as I suggested.
imo you should try to understand the example
for(int i = 1; i < 20; i++)
{
if(x%2==0) printf("\n divides by 2");
or if(x%3==0) printf("\n divides by 3");
else printf("\n no divides (by 2 or 3)");
}
you understand how this would work? i think you do
and how in normal c without this "or" it would look,
for exampel in your if else model?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 17:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11bo0ul$pbso$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403568 |
On 26/10/2026 16:45, fir wrote:
> bartc pisze:
>>> without or (or something analogic) as i understand if im not wrong
>>> you cant
>> You seem fixated on that 'or'. Either use 'else', or create 'or' as an
>> alias as I suggested.
>
> imo you should try to understand the example
>
> for(int i = 1; i < 20; i++)
> {
>
> if(x%2==0) printf("\n divides by 2");
> or if(x%3==0) printf("\n divides by 3");
> else printf("\n no divides (by 2 or 3)");
> }
>
> you understand how this would work? i think you do
>
> and how in normal c without this "or" it would look,
> for exampel in your if else model?
Show me exactly what the output should be, when it is written like this:
if(x%2==0) printf("\n%d divides by 2", i);
or if(x%3==0) printf("\n%d divides by 3", i);
else printf("\n%d no divides (by 2 or 3)", i);
You might also want to look at the FizzBuzz program.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 18:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bo1bc$phlr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403569 |
bartc pisze:
> On 26/10/2026 16:45, fir wrote:
>> bartc pisze:
>>>> without or (or something analogic) as i understand if im not wrong
>>>> you cant
>>> You seem fixated on that 'or'. Either use 'else', or create 'or' as
>>> an alias as I suggested.
>>
>> imo you should try to understand the example
>>
>> for(int i = 1; i < 20; i++)
>> {
>>
>> if(x%2==0) printf("\n divides by 2");
>> or if(x%3==0) printf("\n divides by 3");
>> else printf("\n no divides (by 2 or 3)");
>> }
>>
>> you understand how this would work? i think you do
>>
>> and how in normal c without this "or" it would look,
>> for exampel in your if else model?
>
> Show me exactly what the output should be, when it is written like this:
>
> if(x%2==0) printf("\n%d divides by 2", i);
> or if(x%3==0) printf("\n%d divides by 3", i);
> else printf("\n%d no divides (by 2 or 3)", i);
>
> You might also want to look at the FizzBuzz program.
>
1 no divides (by 2 or 3)
2 divides by 2
3 divides by 3
4 divides by 2
5 no divides (by 2 or 3)
6 divides by 2
6 divides by 3
7 no divides (by 2 or 3)
8 divides by 2
9 divides by 3
10 divides by 2
11 no divides (by 2 or 3)
12 divides by 2
12 divides by 3
13 no divides (by 2 or 3)
14 divides by 2
15 divides by 3
16 divides by 2
17 no divides (by 2 or 3)
18 divides by 2
18 divides by 3
19 no divides (by 2 or 3)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 18:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bo1jf$phlr$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403570 |
fir pisze:
> bartc pisze:
>> On 26/10/2026 16:45, fir wrote:
>>> bartc pisze:
>>>>> without or (or something analogic) as i understand if im not wrong
>>>>> you cant
>>>> You seem fixated on that 'or'. Either use 'else', or create 'or' as
>>>> an alias as I suggested.
>>>
>>> imo you should try to understand the example
>>>
>>> for(int i = 1; i < 20; i++)
>>> {
>>>
>>> if(x%2==0) printf("\n divides by 2");
>>> or if(x%3==0) printf("\n divides by 3");
>>> else printf("\n no divides (by 2 or 3)");
>>> }
>>>
>>> you understand how this would work? i think you do
>>>
>>> and how in normal c without this "or" it would look,
>>> for exampel in your if else model?
>>
>> Show me exactly what the output should be, when it is written like this:
>>
>> if(x%2==0) printf("\n%d divides by 2", i);
>> or if(x%3==0) printf("\n%d divides by 3", i);
>> else printf("\n%d no divides (by 2 or 3)", i);
>>
>> You might also want to look at the FizzBuzz program.
>>
> 1 no divides (by 2 or 3)
> 2 divides by 2
> 3 divides by 3
> 4 divides by 2
> 5 no divides (by 2 or 3)
> 6 divides by 2
> 6 divides by 3
> 7 no divides (by 2 or 3)
> 8 divides by 2
> 9 divides by 3
> 10 divides by 2
> 11 no divides (by 2 or 3)
> 12 divides by 2
> 12 divides by 3
> 13 no divides (by 2 or 3)
> 14 divides by 2
> 15 divides by 3
> 16 divides by 2
> 17 no divides (by 2 or 3)
> 18 divides by 2
> 18 divides by 3
> 19 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>
in fact i had more such in my mind
for(int i=0; i<20; i++)
{
printf("\n %d,i);
if(x%2==0) printf("\n divides by 2");
or if(x%3==0) printf("\n divides by 3");
else printf("\n no divides (by 2 or 3)");
}
so the output is
1
no divides (by 2 or 3)
2
divides by 2
3
divides by 3
4
divides by 2
5
no divides (by 2 or 3)
6
divides by 2
divides by 3
7
no divides (by 2 or 3)
8
divides by 2
9
divides by 3
10
divides by 2
11
no divides (by 2 or 3)
12
divides by 2
divides by 3
13
no divides (by 2 or 3)
14
divides by 2
15
divides by 3
16
divides by 2
17
no divides (by 2 or 3)
18
divides by 2
divides by 3
19
no divides (by 2 or 3)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 18:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bo33v$qaa9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403571 |
fir pisze:
> fir pisze:
>> bartc pisze:
>>> On 26/10/2026 16:45, fir wrote:
>>>> bartc pisze:
>>>>>> without or (or something analogic) as i understand if im not wrong
>>>>>> you cant
>>>>> You seem fixated on that 'or'. Either use 'else', or create 'or' as
>>>>> an alias as I suggested.
>>>>
>>>> imo you should try to understand the example
>>>>
>>>> for(int i = 1; i < 20; i++)
>>>> {
>>>>
>>>> if(x%2==0) printf("\n divides by 2");
>>>> or if(x%3==0) printf("\n divides by 3");
>>>> else printf("\n no divides (by 2 or 3)");
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> you understand how this would work? i think you do
>>>>
>>>> and how in normal c without this "or" it would look,
>>>> for exampel in your if else model?
>>>
>>> Show me exactly what the output should be, when it is written like this:
>>>
>>> if(x%2==0) printf("\n%d divides by 2", i);
>>> or if(x%3==0) printf("\n%d divides by 3", i);
>>> else printf("\n%d no divides (by 2 or 3)", i);
>>>
>>> You might also want to look at the FizzBuzz program.
>>>
>> 1 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>> 2 divides by 2
>> 3 divides by 3
>> 4 divides by 2
>> 5 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>> 6 divides by 2
>> 6 divides by 3
>> 7 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>> 8 divides by 2
>> 9 divides by 3
>> 10 divides by 2
>> 11 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>> 12 divides by 2
>> 12 divides by 3
>> 13 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>> 14 divides by 2
>> 15 divides by 3
>> 16 divides by 2
>> 17 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>> 18 divides by 2
>> 18 divides by 3
>> 19 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>
>
>
>
> in fact i had more such in my mind
>
> for(int i=0; i<20; i++)
> {
> printf("\n %d,i);
> if(x%2==0) printf("\n divides by 2");
> or if(x%3==0) printf("\n divides by 3");
> else printf("\n no divides (by 2 or 3)");
>
> }
>
> so the output is
> 1
> no divides (by 2 or 3)
> 2
> divides by 2
> 3
> divides by 3
> 4
> divides by 2
> 5
> no divides (by 2 or 3)
> 6
> divides by 2
> divides by 3
> 7
> no divides (by 2 or 3)
> 8
> divides by 2
> 9
> divides by 3
> 10
> divides by 2
> 11
> no divides (by 2 or 3)
> 12
> divides by 2
> divides by 3
> 13
> no divides (by 2 or 3)
> 14
> divides by 2
> 15
> divides by 3
> 16
> divides by 2
> 17
> no divides (by 2 or 3)
> 18
> divides by 2
> divides by 3
> 19
> no divides (by 2 or 3)
>
...and.....?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 19:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11bo86r$sgm6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403570 |
On 26/10/2026 17:06, fir wrote:
> bartc pisze:
>> On 26/10/2026 16:45, fir wrote:
>>> bartc pisze:
>>>>> without or (or something analogic) as i understand if im not wrong
>>>>> you cant
>>>> You seem fixated on that 'or'. Either use 'else', or create 'or' as
>>>> an alias as I suggested.
>>>
>>> imo you should try to understand the example
>>>
>>> for(int i = 1; i < 20; i++)
>>> {
>>>
>>> if(x%2==0) printf("\n divides by 2");
>>> or if(x%3==0) printf("\n divides by 3");
>>> else printf("\n no divides (by 2 or 3)");
>>> }
>>>
>>> you understand how this would work? i think you do
>>>
>>> and how in normal c without this "or" it would look,
>>> for exampel in your if else model?
>>
>> Show me exactly what the output should be, when it is written like this:
>>
>> if(x%2==0) printf("\n%d divides by 2", i);
>> or if(x%3==0) printf("\n%d divides by 3", i);
>> else printf("\n%d no divides (by 2 or 3)", i);
>>
>> You might also want to look at the FizzBuzz program.
>>
> 1 no divides (by 2 or 3)
> 2 divides by 2
> 3 divides by 3
> 4 divides by 2
> 5 no divides (by 2 or 3)
> 6 divides by 2
> 6 divides by 3
> 7 no divides (by 2 or 3)
> 8 divides by 2
> 9 divides by 3
> 10 divides by 2
> 11 no divides (by 2 or 3)
> 12 divides by 2
> 12 divides by 3
> 13 no divides (by 2 or 3)
> 14 divides by 2
> 15 divides by 3
> 16 divides by 2
> 17 no divides (by 2 or 3)
> 18 divides by 2
> 18 divides by 3
> 19 no divides (by 2 or 3)
OK, thanks. So the pattern you're talking about is this:
case (c1) {s1}
case (c2) {s2}
case (c3) {s3}
else {s4}
where each of s1/s2/s3 is executed if the corresponding c1/c2/c3 is
true, independently of the others. At least one statement will be
executed in 7 of the 8 possible boolean combinations in this example.
s4 is only executed when each of c1/c2/c3 is false. In other words:
if (c1) {s1}
if (c2) {s2}
if (c3) {s3}
if (!c1 && !c2 && !c3) {s4}
Assuming c1/c2/c3 are not modified by s1/s2/s3, but this is also partly
the case with your proposal.
Or maybe it can be done like this:
if (c1 || c2 || c3) {
s4
else if (c1) {s1)
....
The syntax will anyway need some work to tie all those case/if parts
together (as s2 for example could contain nested versions).
Or you can forget about having to create a hard-to-grasp and
awkward-to-implement feature like this, and either use workarounds like
my C examples, or use another approach to the problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 20:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11boaad$td13$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403576 |
bartc pisze:
> On 26/10/2026 17:06, fir wrote:
>> bartc pisze:
>>> On 26/10/2026 16:45, fir wrote:
>>>> bartc pisze:
>>>>>> without or (or something analogic) as i understand if im not wrong
>>>>>> you cant
>>>>> You seem fixated on that 'or'. Either use 'else', or create 'or' as
>>>>> an alias as I suggested.
>>>>
>>>> imo you should try to understand the example
>>>>
>>>> for(int i = 1; i < 20; i++)
>>>> {
>>>>
>>>> if(x%2==0) printf("\n divides by 2");
>>>> or if(x%3==0) printf("\n divides by 3");
>>>> else printf("\n no divides (by 2 or 3)");
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> you understand how this would work? i think you do
>>>>
>>>> and how in normal c without this "or" it would look,
>>>> for exampel in your if else model?
>>>
>>> Show me exactly what the output should be, when it is written like this:
>>>
>>> if(x%2==0) printf("\n%d divides by 2", i);
>>> or if(x%3==0) printf("\n%d divides by 3", i);
>>> else printf("\n%d no divides (by 2 or 3)", i);
>>>
>>> You might also want to look at the FizzBuzz program.
>>>
>> 1 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>> 2 divides by 2
>> 3 divides by 3
>> 4 divides by 2
>> 5 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>> 6 divides by 2
>> 6 divides by 3
>> 7 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>> 8 divides by 2
>> 9 divides by 3
>> 10 divides by 2
>> 11 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>> 12 divides by 2
>> 12 divides by 3
>> 13 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>> 14 divides by 2
>> 15 divides by 3
>> 16 divides by 2
>> 17 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>> 18 divides by 2
>> 18 divides by 3
>> 19 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>
> OK, thanks. So the pattern you're talking about is this:
>
> case (c1) {s1}
> case (c2) {s2}
> case (c3) {s3}
> else {s4}
>
> where each of s1/s2/s3 is executed if the corresponding c1/c2/c3 is
> true, independently of the others. At least one statement will be
> executed in 7 of the 8 possible boolean combinations in this example.
>
> s4 is only executed when each of c1/c2/c3 is false. In other words:
>
> if (c1) {s1}
> if (c2) {s2}
> if (c3) {s3}
> if (!c1 && !c2 && !c3) {s4}
>
> Assuming c1/c2/c3 are not modified by s1/s2/s3, but this is also partly
> the case with your proposal.
>
> Or maybe it can be done like this:
>
> if (c1 || c2 || c3) {
> s4
> else if (c1) {s1)
> ....
>
> The syntax will anyway need some work to tie all those case/if parts
> together (as s2 for example could contain nested versions).
>
> Or you can forget about having to create a hard-to-grasp and
> awkward-to-implement feature like this, and either use workarounds like
> my C examples, or use another approach to the problem.
>
>
>
hahaha
lol ye use worakarounds instead of simple right solution
(this solution may come in some plavours as i said before, but this or
ketword for reasons mentioned is not bad)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 19:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11bobf0$tsad$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403578 |
On 26/10/2026 19:39, fir wrote:
> bartc pisze:
>>> 1 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>> 2 divides by 2
>>> 3 divides by 3
>>> 4 divides by 2
>>> 5 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>> 6 divides by 2
>>> 6 divides by 3
>>> 7 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>> 8 divides by 2
>>> 9 divides by 3
>>> 10 divides by 2
>>> 11 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>> 12 divides by 2
>>> 12 divides by 3
>>> 13 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>> 14 divides by 2
>>> 15 divides by 3
>>> 16 divides by 2
>>> 17 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>> 18 divides by 2
>>> 18 divides by 3
>>> 19 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>
>> OK, thanks. So the pattern you're talking about is this:
>>
>> case (c1) {s1}
>> case (c2) {s2}
>> case (c3) {s3}
>> else {s4}
>>
>> where each of s1/s2/s3 is executed if the corresponding c1/c2/c3 is
>> true, independently of the others. At least one statement will be
>> executed in 7 of the 8 possible boolean combinations in this example.
>>
>> s4 is only executed when each of c1/c2/c3 is false. In other words:
>>
>> if (c1) {s1}
>> if (c2) {s2}
>> if (c3) {s3}
>> if (!c1 && !c2 && !c3) {s4}
>>
>> Assuming c1/c2/c3 are not modified by s1/s2/s3, but this is also
>> partly the case with your proposal.
>>
>> Or maybe it can be done like this:
>>
>> if (c1 || c2 || c3) {
>> s4
>> else if (c1) {s1)
>> ....
>>
>> The syntax will anyway need some work to tie all those case/if parts
>> together (as s2 for example could contain nested versions).
>>
>> Or you can forget about having to create a hard-to-grasp and awkward-
>> to-implement feature like this, and either use workarounds like my C
>> examples, or use another approach to the problem.
>>
>>
>>
> hahaha
>
> lol ye use worakarounds instead of simple right solution
The right solution to what problem? It took multiple posts before you
even managed to explain how your proposal is supposed to behave.
(And then tomorrow it'll probably do something else.)
> (this solution may come in some plavours as i said before, but this or
> ketword for reasons mentioned is not bad)
OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or' keyword
to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a real example.
Because I've not convinced it comes up often enough to be worth a
dedicated feature.
Then, consider examples like this:
case (a==b and c==d) {}
case (a==b and e==f) {}
case (a<b) {}
case (a>=b) {}
case (c==d) {}
You'll find, when converting to regular C, that detecting the case of
all false will mean checking all conditions, but now those will contain
duplicates. It is hard to cleanly express, which is a bad sign as a
prospective language feature.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 21:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11boc9j$u7lh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403583 |
bartc pisze:
> On 26/10/2026 19:39, fir wrote:
>> bartc pisze:
>
>>>> 1 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>> 2 divides by 2
>>>> 3 divides by 3
>>>> 4 divides by 2
>>>> 5 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>> 6 divides by 2
>>>> 6 divides by 3
>>>> 7 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>> 8 divides by 2
>>>> 9 divides by 3
>>>> 10 divides by 2
>>>> 11 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>> 12 divides by 2
>>>> 12 divides by 3
>>>> 13 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>> 14 divides by 2
>>>> 15 divides by 3
>>>> 16 divides by 2
>>>> 17 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>> 18 divides by 2
>>>> 18 divides by 3
>>>> 19 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>
>>> OK, thanks. So the pattern you're talking about is this:
>>>
>>> case (c1) {s1}
>>> case (c2) {s2}
>>> case (c3) {s3}
>>> else {s4}
>>>
>>> where each of s1/s2/s3 is executed if the corresponding c1/c2/c3 is
>>> true, independently of the others. At least one statement will be
>>> executed in 7 of the 8 possible boolean combinations in this example.
>>>
>>> s4 is only executed when each of c1/c2/c3 is false. In other words:
>>>
>>> if (c1) {s1}
>>> if (c2) {s2}
>>> if (c3) {s3}
>>> if (!c1 && !c2 && !c3) {s4}
>>>
>>> Assuming c1/c2/c3 are not modified by s1/s2/s3, but this is also
>>> partly the case with your proposal.
>>>
>>> Or maybe it can be done like this:
>>>
>>> if (c1 || c2 || c3) {
>>> s4
>>> else if (c1) {s1)
>>> ....
>>>
>>> The syntax will anyway need some work to tie all those case/if parts
>>> together (as s2 for example could contain nested versions).
>>>
>>> Or you can forget about having to create a hard-to-grasp and awkward-
>>> to-implement feature like this, and either use workarounds like my C
>>> examples, or use another approach to the problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> hahaha
>>
>> lol ye use worakarounds instead of simple right solution
>
> The right solution to what problem? It took multiple posts before you
> even managed to explain how your proposal is supposed to behave.
>
well i was surprised how slow you think it is the reason you get things
slow - and that s why it took multiple posts - still you far from
getting it more it seems - it may take years maybe ;c
and i make laugh becouse its funny how some slowly take some things and
how bad answer thay give - its kinda laughable
> (And then tomorrow it'll probably do something else.)
>
>> (this solution may come in some plavours as i said before, but this or
>> ketword for reasons mentioned is not bad)
>
> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or' keyword
> to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a real example.
>
> Because I've not convinced it comes up often enough to be worth a
> dedicated feature.
>
> Then, consider examples like this:
>
> case (a==b and c==d) {}
> case (a==b and e==f) {}
>
> case (a<b) {}
> case (a>=b) {}
> case (c==d) {}
>
> You'll find, when converting to regular C, that detecting the case of
> all false will mean checking all conditions, but now those will contain
> duplicates. It is hard to cleanly express, which is a bad sign as a
> prospective language feature.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-26 21:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11bodc6$ul1k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403583 |
bartc pisze:
> On 26/10/2026 19:39, fir wrote:
>> bartc pisze:
>
>>>> 1 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>> 2 divides by 2
>>>> 3 divides by 3
>>>> 4 divides by 2
>>>> 5 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>> 6 divides by 2
>>>> 6 divides by 3
>>>> 7 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>> 8 divides by 2
>>>> 9 divides by 3
>>>> 10 divides by 2
>>>> 11 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>> 12 divides by 2
>>>> 12 divides by 3
>>>> 13 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>> 14 divides by 2
>>>> 15 divides by 3
>>>> 16 divides by 2
>>>> 17 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>> 18 divides by 2
>>>> 18 divides by 3
>>>> 19 no divides (by 2 or 3)
>>>
>>> OK, thanks. So the pattern you're talking about is this:
>>>
>>> case (c1) {s1}
>>> case (c2) {s2}
>>> case (c3) {s3}
>>> else {s4}
>>>
>>> where each of s1/s2/s3 is executed if the corresponding c1/c2/c3 is
>>> true, independently of the others. At least one statement will be
>>> executed in 7 of the 8 possible boolean combinations in this example.
>>>
>>> s4 is only executed when each of c1/c2/c3 is false. In other words:
>>>
>>> if (c1) {s1}
>>> if (c2) {s2}
>>> if (c3) {s3}
>>> if (!c1 && !c2 && !c3) {s4}
>>>
>>> Assuming c1/c2/c3 are not modified by s1/s2/s3, but this is also
>>> partly the case with your proposal.
>>>
>>> Or maybe it can be done like this:
>>>
>>> if (c1 || c2 || c3) {
>>> s4
>>> else if (c1) {s1)
>>> ....
>>>
>>> The syntax will anyway need some work to tie all those case/if parts
>>> together (as s2 for example could contain nested versions).
>>>
>>> Or you can forget about having to create a hard-to-grasp and awkward-
>>> to-implement feature like this, and either use workarounds like my C
>>> examples, or use another approach to the problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> hahaha
>>
>> lol ye use worakarounds instead of simple right solution
>
> The right solution to what problem? It took multiple posts before you
> even managed to explain how your proposal is supposed to behave.
>
> (And then tomorrow it'll probably do something else.)
>
>> (this solution may come in some plavours as i said before, but this or
>> ketword for reasons mentioned is not bad)
>
> OK, try a simple experiment: convert some code using your 'or' keyword
> to regular C syntax and post it here. Preferably on a real example.
>
you cant properly convert this or/and groups to c in good way becouse
there is flaw in c you cannot express all needed combinations generally
with sole if 's and else's
as was showed here
> Because I've not convinced it comes up often enough to be worth a
> dedicated feature.
>
> Then, consider examples like this:
>
> case (a==b and c==d) {}
> case (a==b and e==f) {}
>
> case (a<b) {}
> case (a>=b) {}
> case (c==d) {}
>
> You'll find, when converting to regular C, that detecting the case of
> all false will mean checking all conditions, but now those will contain
> duplicates. It is hard to cleanly express, which is a bad sign as a
> prospective language feature.
i dont like get what you talk here..overally this is a work for compiler
to simplify it in output
btw you think i should defend the things i was talking about -
i more see its a waste of time if someone dont understand things
it is for him if he understoods or not, i have not so much time to
defend obvious things against the people who not care to much to
understand things
i would sy like its taking hours repairing a code that is
good - whou would like to do it?
generally such time spanding that you got good code and some weird
people come nad put a bulshit its wrong and expect me to explain this is
not its not a good time spending imo
i would rather expect if some will find some 'bug ' in code then he
first should understand it
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 26 of 26 — ← Prev page 1 … 24 25 [26]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web