\"break <label>\" NOT \"break-to <label>\"

[sde at Mitre-Bedford]

    >I do understand the point, but BREAK-TO is not structred anymore than
    >any sort of gotos.  If you just say, it's OK to user goto's rather only
    >in these well-defined casees, you can get by WITHOUT MAKING GRATUITOUS
    >AND UNNECESSARY CHANGES TO THE LANGUAGE.  BREAK-TO is a total unnecessary
    >change.  You're not going to be able to get rid of goto (one of the nice
    >things about C is that it allows careful programmers to break the structure
    >and typing rules), adding break-to is redundant.
    >
    >-Ron
...........................................................................
		outer_loop: for (;;) {
		inner_loop:    for( ;; ) {
				    ...
				    break  outer_loop;
			       }
			    }
		labelled_null_stmt:;

is NOT the same as defining break' as goto, although one could accomplish
the same thing less gracefully by goto l..stmt.

At this point, this it has been remarked that this subject has "been beaten
to death" several months ago (before I joined the net), I would suggest that
if we continue this, we ought to do so by individual msgs rather than info-c.

Absit Invidia,
David   sde at mitre-bedford