220 3613 <51616EF5.4060607@bubblescope.net> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Chris Jefferson Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: "break break ;" etc. to break out of nested loops Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 14:04:53 +0100 Lines: 105 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <51616EF5.4060607@bubblescope.net> References: <1f964e4b-2762-43b8-85e5-41392926b07a@isocpp.org> <51614514.2060103@bubblescope.net> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090702050207060107040905" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1365339898 11048 80.91.229.3 (7 Apr 2013 13:04:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 13:04:58 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCF5NPH6QMFRB6O5QWFQKGQESLDT5HY@isocpp.org Sun Apr 07 15:05:00 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-ea0-f197.google.com ([209.85.215.197]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UOpHF-0007PG-Sc for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Sun, 07 Apr 2013 15:04:57 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-ea0-f197.google.com with SMTP id b15sf7172799eae.8 for ; Sun, 07 Apr 2013 06:04:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:received-spf:x-received :message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-gm-message-state:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=Op50QDqVDsmnVpxgXqQmuuhmB89l1mhzS7NChwo0sXg=; b=G9QvAurXX+O36pUiwOU8ZiCAoUybmeSm5O8PFOiTV6NS1bMOToBv5OIFLMOcGEZQNh 4qwBZJO45+b8MLUZqnicmx1mviQRYzRAWu7uk87d8aUz0/y9TtQZ49SL+GMUr0YJIBnn c77DIPhdCQ7yC9jKA2/A/K+IuFmYjL8sd8KRetmClafJwaikS4mO/QKQgcWZVA1sSPAh hvJ+gGprTXWed8tj3cnQh7r5tox5IS8UAs5SnYiD42X2b+sLGdO7EAJC6l6ph8mF3lKu O+Gux+jB0mYKEFbS39q1 X-Received: by 10.180.106.73 with SMTP id gs9mr1244317wib.2.1365339897378; Sun, 07 Apr 2013 06:04:57 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.180.184.105 with SMTP id et9ls623655wic.46.canary; Sun, 07 Apr 2013 06:04:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.149.227 with SMTP id ud3mr13050767wib.0.1365339896493; Sun, 07 Apr 2013 06:04:56 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-we0-x235.google.com (mail-we0-x235.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c03::235]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gj12si3460969wic.13.2013.04.07.06.04.56 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 07 Apr 2013 06:04:56 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 2a00:1450:400c:c03::235 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of chris@bubblescope.net) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c03::235; Original-Received: by mail-we0-f181.google.com with SMTP id d7so3860306wer.12 for ; Sun, 07 Apr 2013 06:04:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.91.106 with SMTP id cd10mr7982595wib.6.1365339896189; Sun, 07 Apr 2013 06:04:56 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.183] (94-192-86-137.zone6.bethere.co.uk. [94.192.86.137]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q13sm20721335wie.0.2013.04.07.06.04.54 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 07 Apr 2013 06:04:55 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130311 Thunderbird/17.0.4 In-Reply-To: X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmF8DUiKr673/UflXuKcODFHqEb/OrIXUnWKylr83Ki8lQ3Ht7e/NqdkOiuy6t/UfiTKUUx X-Original-Sender: chris@bubblescope.net X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 2a00:1450:400c:c03::235 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of chris@bubblescope.net) smtp.mail=chris@bubblescope.net Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:3613 Archived-At: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090702050207060107040905 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed On 07/04/13 12:32, temptony@freemail.hu wrote: > On Sunday, April 7, 2013 12:06:12 PM UTC+2, Chris Jefferson wrote: > > Serious question: If this is equivalent to 'goto > ContinueExecution', then why not just teach people to use goto? > That has the advantage that I don't have to be careful to figure > out where 'break break break;' will go, I can see the label! > > Chris > > > You could ask exactly the same question about the simple *break* > statement, which many programmers find very handy! I would ask the same statement if someone was suggesting introducing the 'break' statement today, but they are not, and I certainly wouldn't suggest breaking piles of code by taking it out. As someone who teaches C and C++, I feel every new feature has to add enough benefit to be worth the extra teaching load. Seeing as this feature seems to be identical (as you say) to a goto, just avoiding having to give the label, then I do not think personally the benefits outweight the costs. Chris -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/?hl=en. --------------090702050207060107040905 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 07/04/13 12:32, temptony@freemail.hu wrote:
On Sunday, April 7, 2013 12:06:12 PM UTC+2, Chris Jefferson wrote:

Serious question: If this is equivalent to 'goto ContinueExecution', then why not just teach people to use goto? That has the advantage that I don't have to be careful to figure out where 'break break break;' will go, I can see the label!

Chris

You could ask exactly the same question about the simple *break* statement, which many programmers find very handy!

I would ask the same statement if someone was suggesting introducing the 'break' statement today, but they are not, and I certainly wouldn't suggest breaking piles of code by taking it out.

As someone who teaches C and C++, I feel every new feature has to add enough benefit to be worth the extra teaching load. Seeing as this feature seems to be identical (as you say) to a goto, just avoiding having to give the label, then I do not think personally the benefits outweight the costs.

Chris

--
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/?hl=en.
 
 
--------------090702050207060107040905-- .