From 5003865878827317284 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.alt.net!frodo.cs.rpi.edu!not-for-mail From: Helmut Zeisel Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: for-else: adding else to for loops Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:56:09 CST Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 22 Sender: cppmods@cs.rpi.edu Approved: stephen.clamage@sun.com Message-ID: <8ca0fe0a-aade-4c5f-89b4-d6dec40675cc@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> References: <5d82cd6c-2a22-4dd7-8c7d-790b579533ea@d15g2000prc.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: netlab.cs.rpi.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 To: (Usenet) Return-Path: X-Original-Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 03:45:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Submission-Address: std-c++@netlab.cs.rpi.edu Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.std.c++:1306 On Aug 7, 7:56 pm, Jared Grubb wrote: > I've seen examples > in live code where developers solve this by: > 1) re-testing the loop condition, > 2) using an extra flag-variable declared outside of the for loop that > can be tested after the for loop finished (e.g., put "bool > success=false" outside the loop in the second example), > 3) by encapsulating the for-loop in a separate function (the "break" > becomes "return" and the extra code follows the for loop). Why don't you use "goto after-else-branch" instead of "break"? Helmut -- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@netlab.cs.rpi.edu] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ]