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 | 2026-10-11 22:12 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 215 — 20 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 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 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> - 2026-10-11 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 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 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 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> - 2026-10-10 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 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 cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-10-12 22:35 +0000
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
Page 8 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next page →
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-10 20:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11aeusp$29hmu$2@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #402936 |
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
> On 2026-10-11 00:32, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
>>> On 2026-10-10 22:03, Michael S wrote:
>>>> The cases where I want to break out of the loop from the switch in
>>>> the
>>>> body of the loop are very common.
>>>
>>> Ah, so you'd have needed something like Kornshell's 'break 2' to leave
>>> more than one level. - I suppose, you needed to used a 'goto' instead
>>> (and avoid the 'break' completely for those cases).
>> Something like that, sure, but please not that.
>> Specifying the *number* of levels to break or continue is IMHO
>> horrible. "break N" makes me count things so the computer doesn't
>> have to.
>
> I agree; that's what I also dislike about it.
>
> The point is the question what choices you have. The 'goto' is IMO
> the worst; because of semantic interdependencies that will regularly
> lead to semantical restrictions about its applicability (or placement
> of labels); various languages have various restrictions, it's just
> a mess! The 'break' is a "cheap" solution, but also very restricted.
> There's yet other variants with their own drawbacks; I won't even
> start with it.
>
>> There are proposals, and precedents in other languages, for *named*
>> loops, and I'd like to see that in a future C.
>
> One of the better possibilities, maybe; but still not satisfying for
> my (very subjective) taste.
>
> (Some language let you organize such things in completely other ways
> with no need for jumps of any sort.)
I find "break NAME;", where "NAME" is the name of an enclosing
construct, unambiguously better than "break N;", where N is the
number of levels to break out of.
The "break N" syntax is specified by POSIX. It's supported by ksh,
bash, dash, zsh, and probably other Bourne-based shells. (My guess
is that it originated in ksh.) My best guess is that because the
Bourne-like shells don't have gotos, they don't have labels, so
named loops would have required inventing those too. And admittedly
I suppose it's not too bad if it's no more than a couple of levels --
but it's still easy to, ahem, *break* if you reorganize the code.
There's a proposal for C2y to use goto labels as loop names, and a
competing one to define a new syntax like "for NAME (;;)" :
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3355.htm
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3377.pdf
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 10:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11afhr4$286ml$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402938 |
On 2026-10-11 05:13, Keith Thompson wrote: > > I find "break NAME;", where "NAME" is the name of an enclosing > construct, unambiguously better than "break N;", where N is the > number of levels to break out of. Yes, sure. (Reminds me Pascal that supported for 'goto' just integer numbers [in the range 1..9999, IIRC] for jumps. - This is different from 'break N' but still also a bad design, IMO. - Not sure about later Pascal dialects, though. - Numbers for labels or levels, not nice.) > > The "break N" syntax is specified by POSIX. It's supported by ksh, > bash, dash, zsh, and probably other Bourne-based shells. (My guess > is that it originated in ksh.) My best guess is that because the > Bourne-like shells don't have gotos, they don't have labels, so > named loops would have required inventing those too. And admittedly > I suppose it's not too bad if it's no more than a couple of levels -- > but it's still easy to, ahem, *break* if you reorganize the code. Yes. - But while I don't find it (the N) elegant as concept it's in practice not that bad WRT "reorganization of code" since it's (as opposed to the 'goto' in other languages) a local construct. Janis > [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 04:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <864iesjx6e.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #402897 |
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: > The cases where I want to break out of the loop from the switch in > the body of the loop are very common. That surprises me. Can you post a representative example (and ideally not overly long)?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 13:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11afvqt$2kloc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402975 |
On 11/10/2026 12:26, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> The cases where I want to break out of the loop from the switch in
>> the body of the loop are very common.
>
> That surprises me. Can you post a representative example (and
> ideally not overly long)?
An example shouldn't be necessary. It is enough to know that loop-breaks
exist and are used.
Then, whether break works here:
while (cond) {
....
break;
....
}
shouldn't need to depend on whether that break happens to be inside a
switch statement.
Maybe it is within an if-else chain, but at some point it is refactored
into a switch statement. Now it no long does what is expected, and in
fact using break to quit the loop from inside switch becomes impossible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 06:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86zewkidn4.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #402976 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 11/10/2026 12:26, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: >> >>> The cases where I want to break out of the loop from the switch in >>> the body of the loop are very common. >> >> That surprises me. Can you post a representative example (and >> ideally not overly long)? > > An example shouldn't be necessary. It is enough to know that > loop-breaks exist and are used. It doesn't surprise me that they exist. What surprises me is that they are common, in code written by someone I consider a competent programmer. I don't care about what idiotic things are done by people who aren't competent programmers. You might want to think about the deeper meaning of that last sentence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 14:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11ag49c$2mal9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402979 |
On 11/10/2026 14:13, Tim Rentsch wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> On 11/10/2026 12:26, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> >>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: >>> >>>> The cases where I want to break out of the loop from the switch in >>>> the body of the loop are very common. >>> >>> That surprises me. Can you post a representative example (and >>> ideally not overly long)? >> >> An example shouldn't be necessary. It is enough to know that >> loop-breaks exist and are used. > > It doesn't surprise me that they exist. What surprises me is > that they are common, in code written by someone I consider a > competent programmer. I don't care about what idiotic things > are done by people who aren't competent programmers. > > You might want to think about the deeper meaning of that last > sentence. You might also think about the deeper meaning of my comments. You don't take a problem feature of a language design and brush it under the carpet. Then, when questioned, suggest that it's very rarely used. Or when it is used, that they shouldn't using it because everyone should be as clever as you at writing convoluted code: Look how clever I am, I've never needed to use '(loop) break' or 'goto' ever. (See, I even had to qualify that 'break' because 'switch' stupidly uses the same keyword.) And you're ignoring my point: inside a loop is a conditional break. But as the language is now, you must use if-else for that condition and not switch. That is a flaw.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 15:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11ag37o$2ln0a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402976 |
On 11/10/2026 14:35, bart wrote:
> On 11/10/2026 12:26, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> The cases where I want to break out of the loop from the switch in
>>> the body of the loop are very common.
>>
>> That surprises me. Can you post a representative example (and
>> ideally not overly long)?
>
>
> An example shouldn't be necessary. It is enough to know that loop-breaks
> exist and are used.
>
> Then, whether break works here:
>
> while (cond) {
> ....
> break;
> ....
> }
>
> shouldn't need to depend on whether that break happens to be inside a
> switch statement.
>
> Maybe it is within an if-else chain, but at some point it is refactored
> into a switch statement. Now it no long does what is expected, and in
> fact using break to quit the loop from inside switch becomes impossible.
>
The question was not about how it is possible to write a loop within a
switch and have a "break" statement inside the loop. The question was
about how often such code was written, and what makes it "very common"
for Michael. I am also curious to know if he finds the use of the same
"break" keyword makes the code more difficult to read, or increases the
risk of errors or misunderstandings.
It is quite obvious that it is easy to write code with loops + break
within a switch. It is equally obvious that it is easy to avoid such
constructs - there are always ways to avoid a "break" in a loop, and if
the code run within a switch case is complex, it is often practical to
refactor it into a separate function. But presumably Michael has
reasons not do do that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrey Tarasevich <noone@noone.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 09:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11agbsh$2pbk7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402980 |
On Sun 10/11/2026 6:33 AM, David Brown wrote:
>
> It is quite obvious that it is easy to write code with loops + break
> within a switch. It is equally obvious that it is easy to avoid such
> constructs - there are always ways to avoid a "break" in a loop, and if
> the code run within a switch case is complex, it is often practical to
> refactor it into a separate function. But presumably Michael has
> reasons not do do that.
Um... The common pattern for a "search"-style loop looks as follows
for (/* domain condition */)
{
...
if (/* search condition */)
break;
...
}
So, loops that terminate with `break` are the mainstay of every
competently written code. Moving the "early termination" condition into
the loop header (i.e. lumping the search condition with the domain
condition) is a very ugly anti-pattern in most cases. Moreover, majority
of the loops in an average C program are such "search"-style loops,
meaning that they do have an "early termination" condition.
Now, while overwhelming majority of my loops would use `if` to check the
"early termination", I can imagine that there sill be cases where
`switch` is applicable and more appropriate than an `if`. Yes, a
`switch` can always be replaced with an `if` ladder, but being _forced_
to do so by a language limitation doesn't look right.
And writing a separate function just to work around a weird language
limitation... that doesn't look right either.
--
Best regards,
Andrey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 19:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11aggaq$2qqh9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402988 |
On 11/10/2026 18:01, Andrey Tarasevich wrote:
> On Sun 10/11/2026 6:33 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>
>> It is quite obvious that it is easy to write code with loops + break
>> within a switch. It is equally obvious that it is easy to avoid such
>> constructs - there are always ways to avoid a "break" in a loop, and
>> if the code run within a switch case is complex, it is often practical
>> to refactor it into a separate function. But presumably Michael has
>> reasons not do do that.
>
> Um... The common pattern for a "search"-style loop looks as follows
>
> for (/* domain condition */)
> {
> ...
> if (/* search condition */)
> break;
> ...
> }
>
> So, loops that terminate with `break` are the mainstay of every
> competently written code. Moving the "early termination" condition into
> the loop header (i.e. lumping the search condition with the domain
> condition) is a very ugly anti-pattern in most cases. Moreover, majority
> of the loops in an average C program are such "search"-style loops,
> meaning that they do have an "early termination" condition.
>
> Now, while overwhelming majority of my loops would use `if` to check the
> "early termination", I can imagine that there sill be cases where
> `switch` is applicable and more appropriate than an `if`. Yes, a
> `switch` can always be replaced with an `if` ladder, but being _forced_
> to do so by a language limitation doesn't look right.
>
> And writing a separate function just to work around a weird language
> limitation... that doesn't look right either.
>
Certainly plenty of loops have "break" statements, especially as an
early exit.
Sometimes code is written with big switches in a function, and the cases
might include loops, and those loops might have break statements. The
question is why someone might consider this a very common situation, and
why they might consider it a failing that the same keyword is used for a
switch "break" and for a loop "break". There are two possibilities I
can imagine, but Michael may have other things in mind. One is that the
code is less clear than it might otherwise have been - if that is the
case, then I think the code should be considered for re-factoring into
separate functions if the inner loops are too complex. The other
possibility is that the programmer wanted to break out of the switch
from within the middle of the inner loop. I can imagine that happening,
and it would currently need either a bit of extra code to do the
"breaking" in two steps, a "goto", or refactoring into a separate
function. But it seems strange to me that someone would feel that was a
common enough problem to want to have "switch break" and "loop break" be
separate keywords, rather than go straight to a "break <label>" solution
that would be more general.
Only Michael can, if he wants, explain what he was thinking.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 18:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11agils$2s3tg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #402990 |
On 11/10/2026 18:17, David Brown wrote:
> On 11/10/2026 18:01, Andrey Tarasevich wrote:
>> On Sun 10/11/2026 6:33 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> It is quite obvious that it is easy to write code with loops + break
>>> within a switch. It is equally obvious that it is easy to avoid such
>>> constructs - there are always ways to avoid a "break" in a loop, and
>>> if the code run within a switch case is complex, it is often
>>> practical to refactor it into a separate function. But presumably
>>> Michael has reasons not do do that.
>>
>> Um... The common pattern for a "search"-style loop looks as follows
>>
>> for (/* domain condition */)
>> {
>> ...
>> if (/* search condition */)
>> break;
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> So, loops that terminate with `break` are the mainstay of every
>> competently written code. Moving the "early termination" condition
>> into the loop header (i.e. lumping the search condition with the
>> domain condition) is a very ugly anti-pattern in most cases. Moreover,
>> majority of the loops in an average C program are such "search"-style
>> loops, meaning that they do have an "early termination" condition.
>>
>> Now, while overwhelming majority of my loops would use `if` to check
>> the "early termination", I can imagine that there sill be cases where
>> `switch` is applicable and more appropriate than an `if`. Yes, a
>> `switch` can always be replaced with an `if` ladder, but being
>> _forced_ to do so by a language limitation doesn't look right.
>>
>> And writing a separate function just to work around a weird language
>> limitation... that doesn't look right either.
>>
>
> Certainly plenty of loops have "break" statements, especially as an
> early exit.
>
> Sometimes code is written with big switches in a function, and the cases
> might include loops, and those loops might have break statements. The
> question is why someone might consider this a very common situation, and
> why they might consider it a failing that the same keyword is used for a
> switch "break" and for a loop "break". There are two possibilities I
> can imagine, but Michael may have other things in mind. One is that the
> code is less clear than it might otherwise have been - if that is the
> case, then I think the code should be considered for re-factoring into
> separate functions if the inner loops are too complex. The other
> possibility is that the programmer wanted to break out of the switch
> from within the middle of the inner loop. I can imagine that happening,
> and it would currently need either a bit of extra code to do the
> "breaking" in two steps, a "goto", or refactoring into a separate
> function. But it seems strange to me that someone would feel that was a
> common enough problem to want to have "switch break" and "loop break" be
> separate keywords, rather than go straight to a "break <label>" solution
> that would be more general.
>
> Only Michael can, if he wants, explain what he was thinking.
It sounds like he's pressurised into doing so. Maybe so that he can be
lectured on how to it 'properly'.
'break' to quit a loop early is part of the language, so why shouldn't
someone make use it?
It just its use can be interfered with when 'switch' is involved.
That that happens and needs a workaround, is not satisfactory. The issue
exists 100% because of sharing the 'break' keyword for two different
purposes.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 14:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11agv1t$30q22$2@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #402992 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> 'break' to quit a loop early is part of the language, so why shouldn't
> someone make use it?
Agreed. (There are coding styles that require loops to exit only at the
bottom, but that's not what we're talking about.)
> It just its use can be interfered with when 'switch' is involved.
Yes. Everyone here knows that, and knew it before you started talking
about it.
Michael S wrote above that "The cases where I want to break out of
the loop from the switch in the body of the loop are very common."
Tim Rentsch questioned the "very common" part of that, and asked
for an example. You jumped in and asserted that an example isn't
necessary, because you misunderstood what was being said. *Of
course* there are cases where someone might want to break out of
a loop from a nested switch.
> That that happens and needs a workaround, is not satisfactory. The
> issue exists 100% because of sharing the 'break' keyword for two
> different purposes.
Yes, the overloading of the "break" keyword can be inconvenient.
It makes it difficult to break out of a loop from within a switch
statement. Again, everyone here knows that.
Breaking out of an outer loop from within an inner loop is just
as much of a problem. "break NAME;" proposed for C2y, would solve
both problems. (I just found out that recent versions of gcc and
clang support this as an extension or with "-std=c2y".)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 23:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11ah12b$320sj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403007 |
On 11/10/2026 22:28, Keith Thompson wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > [...] >> 'break' to quit a loop early is part of the language, so why shouldn't >> someone make use it? > > Agreed. (There are coding styles that require loops to exit only at the > bottom, but that's not what we're talking about.) > >> It just its use can be interfered with when 'switch' is involved. > > Yes. Everyone here knows that, and knew it before you started talking > about it. > > Michael S wrote above that "The cases where I want to break out of > the loop from the switch in the body of the loop are very common." > Tim Rentsch questioned the "very common" part of that, and asked > for an example. You jumped in and asserted that an example isn't > necessary, because you misunderstood what was being said. *Of > course* there are cases where someone might want to break out of > a loop from a nested switch. You're missing the undercurrent, which is a tone of disapproval and disbelief. But we'll find out if and when examples are ever posted. However you may want to consider that examples are rare, or even non-existent, /because/ it's not possible to do! So using 'switch' is avoided or some other workaround is found. Michael S actually said this: "The cases where I want to break out of the loop from the switch in the body of the loop are very common." This expresses a desire to do so. > Breaking out of an outer loop from within an inner loop is just > as much of a problem. A less common one but when it happens it will be an actual problem and not an artificial one. > "break NAME;" proposed for C2y, would solve > both problems. (I just found out that recent versions of gcc and > clang support this as an extension or with "-std=c2y".) OK. I'd rather have a solution that doesn't involve inventing names. Does this also fix the break-out-of-a-loop-from-inside-switch issue? In that case just 'break for/while' might do! You know, a little bit like using a different keyword for loops/non-loops.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 16:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11ah640$329bt$5@kst.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #403009 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 11/10/2026 22:28, Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
> You're missing the undercurrent, which is a tone of disapproval and
> disbelief.
I was responding to what you wrote, not to some "undercurrent".
Missing it? I'm practically drowning in it.
You're missing the fact that the problems you keep complaining
about are things that (essentially) everyone was already aware of.
You seem unable to understand that the rest of aren't as angry about
fallthrough as you are, and that we might have valid reasons for
not being angry about it. You seem to think that anyone who is not
outraged that C hasn't added a version of switch that doesn't have
fallthrough simply doesn't understand what you're saying.
[...]
>> Breaking out of an outer loop from within an inner loop is just
>> as much of a problem.
>
> A less common one but when it happens it will be an actual problem and
> not an artificial one.
>
>> "break NAME;" proposed for C2y, would solve
>> both problems. (I just found out that recent versions of gcc and
>> clang support this as an extension or with "-std=c2y".)
[...]
> Does this also fix the break-out-of-a-loop-from-inside-switch issue?
It fixes it in the sense that both loops and switch statements can be
named, and a break or continue can optionally refer to the name of the
targeted loop or switch statement. Of course it doesn't automatically
fix existing code.
> In that case just 'break for/while' might do!
That would work for a "for" within a "while", or a "while" within
a "for", but not for a "while" within a "while" or a "for" within
a "for".
There is ample precedent for named loops in other languages.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 04:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86ik37i3kl.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #403007 |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > [...] > >> 'break' to quit a loop early is part of the language, so why shouldn't >> someone make use it? > > Agreed. (There are coding styles that require loops to exit only at the > bottom, but that's not what we're talking about.) > >> It just its use can be interfered with when 'switch' is involved. > > Yes. Everyone here knows that, and knew it before you started talking > about it. > > Michael S wrote above that "The cases where I want to break out of > the loop from the switch in the body of the loop are very common." > Tim Rentsch questioned the "very common" part of that, and asked > for an example. [...] I didn't question it. I just said it surprised me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 22:02 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20261012220256.00003d07@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #403007 |
On Sun, 11 Oct 2026 14:28:29 -0700 Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote: > bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > [...] > > 'break' to quit a loop early is part of the language, so why > > shouldn't someone make use it? > > Agreed. (There are coding styles that require loops to exit only at > the bottom, but that's not what we're talking about.) > > > It just its use can be interfered with when 'switch' is involved. > > Yes. Everyone here knows that, and knew it before you started talking > about it. > > Michael S wrote above that "The cases where I want to break out of > the loop from the switch in the body of the loop are very common." > Tim Rentsch questioned the "very common" part of that, and asked > for an example. You jumped in and asserted that an example isn't > necessary, because you misunderstood what was being said. > I didn't read the whole subthread, but from what I read it seems that the only reader that misunderstood my statement was David Brown. The rest, including bart, understood just fine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 21:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11ajb95$3t8jj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403050 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 22:31 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20261012223144.00000f95@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #403051 |
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. 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 22:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11ajg4d$286mm$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403053 |
On 2026-10-12 21:31, Michael S wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2026 21:09:25 +0200
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> 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.
Something on a level like that was that I recall you had originally
written. So this doesn't explain more than your original statement
about that. It is quite clear (and I'm positive that it's as clear
to David). As far as I'm concerned, and that was how I understood
David's question, I'd (also) be (but only mildly!) interested what
the *concrete* _application cases_ those actually are since they (as
you said) appear so dominantly in your C-programs. Not the technical
structure ("for() switch() break;") but which types of applications
or application-semantical code patterns would require those that it
appears so often in your context. - My own interest here is limited,
as said, since it certainly doesn't apply to my C-code, and I never
noticed that it would be predominantly a prominent pattern in others'
C-code, beyond being one specific C-patterns amongst hundreds other
common C-patterns. - If it were extraordinarily common in your case
I'd indeed have thought about employing some standard pattern as a
substitute (see one of I think Dan's recent posts), and as you also
confirmed in this post - I snipped it - to actually have done this.
I hope that clarifies what some readers felt was missing.
Myself I also think that both, switch()-loop() and loop()-switch(),
constructs are just _corner-cases_ where doubling the 'break' could
help people, but it wouldn't at all address the more general tasks,
where e.g. more than just one loop and switch is nested.[*] - Myself
I'd certainly expect a solution that is more generally applicable;
labelled control-constructs are one way, even numbered breaks would
be an IMO acceptable extension. - But "C" only supports a one-level
local 'break' and a non-local flexible/arbitrary 'goto'. Two distinct
breaks would just pollute the name-space and not address the inherent
and basic restriction of being still just one-level breaks. - And I'm
confident that even then there'd pop up some pathological person and
complain about these breaks addressing not more that one levels.
Janis
[*] Note the many conditions we have here; exactly two specific and
different constructs, exactly two and not one or more than two, and
the case that you want to leave not one but both. - Can you imagine
that folks are wondering about what application context that stems
from that it appears so often (in your domain). - I think that was
the question that David had. It was certainly the question that
manifested in my mind when I read your post; only that I'm not too
much interested about it if you're operating in a domain where that
is more common than usual (and also don't bother to answer that).
> [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 22:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11aji3e$58b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403058 |
On 12/10/2026 21:32, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 2026-10-12 21:31, Michael S wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2026 21:09:25 +0200
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> Something on a level like that was that I recall you had originally
> written. So this doesn't explain more than your original statement
> about that. It is quite clear (and I'm positive that it's as clear
> to David). As far as I'm concerned, and that was how I understood
> David's question, I'd (also) be (but only mildly!) interested what
> the *concrete* _application cases_ those actually are since they (as
> you said) appear so dominantly in your C-programs. Not the technical
> structure ("for() switch() break;") but which types of applications
> or application-semantical code patterns would require those that it
> appears so often in your context. - My own interest here is limited,
> as said, since it certainly doesn't apply to my C-code, and I never
> noticed that it would be predominantly a prominent pattern in others'
> C-code, beyond being one specific C-patterns amongst hundreds other
> common C-patterns. - If it were extraordinarily common in your case
> I'd indeed have thought about employing some standard pattern as a
> substitute (see one of I think Dan's recent posts), and as you also
> confirmed in this post - I snipped it - to actually have done this.
>
> I hope that clarifies what some readers felt was missing.
>
> Myself I also think that both, switch()-loop() and loop()-switch(),
> constructs are just _corner-cases_ where doubling the 'break' could
> help people, but it wouldn't at all address the more general tasks,
> where e.g. more than just one loop and switch is nested.[*] - Myself
> I'd certainly expect a solution that is more generally applicable;
> labelled control-constructs are one way, even numbered breaks would
> be an IMO acceptable extension. - But "C" only supports a one-level
> local 'break' and a non-local flexible/arbitrary 'goto'. Two distinct
> breaks would just pollute the name-space and not address the inherent
> and basic restriction of being still just one-level breaks. - And I'm
> confident that even then there'd pop up some pathological person and
> complain about these breaks addressing not more that one levels.
>
> Janis
>
> [*] Note the many conditions we have here; exactly two specific and
> different constructs, exactly two and not one or more than two, and
> the case that you want to leave not one but both. - Can you imagine
> that folks are wondering about what application context that stems
> from that it appears so often (in your domain). - I think that was
> the question that David had. It was certainly the question that
> manifested in my mind when I read your post; only that I'm not too
> much interested about it if you're operating in a domain where that
> is more common than usual (and also don't bother to answer that).
Such a lot of words to say little, if anything, that is comprehensible.
Oh, it must be my 'mental block'!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-12 23:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11ajika$37d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #403053 |
On 12/10/2026 21:31, Michael S wrote: > 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. Okay. I am not sure it is that common, and it is not a combination I make much use of in my own code. Many people aim to keep their functions short, while switches can lead to long functions - I think it is quite common in such circumstances to put the switch inside a function of its own, called from within the loop. > > 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. > I cannot remember ever having need of doing something like that - at least not so that I thought "it would be nice if there were a way to break out of the loop from here". Maybe that is an effect of the way I tend to structure my code, or split up my functions - but I do not split my functions to achieve this effect. And the other common resolution, using a goto, is also not something I have needed. Different people have different styles, and occasionally you come across a code structure that someone else thinks is common, while you have never needed it yourself. > If break out of loop and break out of switch were different keyword, it > would be very easy to do. Now that I know what you are talking about, I can see how that would have helped. However, to me, that would seem a very niche usage and not something to consider for an additional keyword in the language. Labelled breaks that can also handle nested loops would, I think, be of significantly wider use while also handling your situation. > > 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. > Only you know your own code, and what you judge as elegant, so there's no argument here. Perhaps I have written code that you would think could have been written more clearly with a switch within a loop if C had two different "break" statements - but it is not a feature that I could see myself making use of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web