From -4490666842672882941 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,6bd75668e589c3cb X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public From: Bjorn Fahller Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: Parameterized return/break/continue for nested loops Date: 1996/10/10 Message-ID: <325D288D.3713@ebc.ericsson.se>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 188527582 references: <01bbb541$57db1d60$31d8cac6@chico> <53f2vu$fd0@panix.com> x-original-date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 18:47:09 +0200 organization: Ericsson Business Networks AB x-auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.std.c++ newsgroups: comp.std.c++ originator: austern@isolde.mti.sgi.com x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (X11; I; HP-UX B.10.10 9000/770) J. Kanze wrote: > > I think that the major argument against it (within the standardization > committee) is that C/C++ already have a labeled break statement. It is > spelled "goto". While a named break is indeed a goto, a goto is by no means a named break. As a rule of thumb, I think the use of goto is a very good sign of something being very wrong in the source code. I cannot see anything such about a named break. If possible (and I know it isn't,) I'd very much like to see goto removed from C++ (and any other language too, for that matter,) once and for all, and have it replaced by something more structured that fills the one use of goto I can see that is not a sign of poor coding. _ /Bjorn. -- Bjorn Fahller Tel: +46 8 4220898 / NA/EBC/FNM/T ------------------- Ericsson Business Networks AB / A polar bear is a rectangular S-131 89 Stockholm/SWEDEN / bear after a coordinate transform --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles: Try just posting with your newsreader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu ]