Oh nooo! (gotos)
Dave Jones
djones at megatest.UUCP
Wed Sep 13 04:04:04 AEST 1989
>From article <1989Sep12.014534.1503 at twwells.com), by bill at twwells.com (T. William Wells):
) In article <7887 at goofy.megatest.UUCP) djones at megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) writes:
) : From article <1989Sep8.070123.4416 at twwells.com), by bill at twwells.com (T. William Wells):
)))) while(rule = (Rule*)Queue_iter_next(&rule_iter)) {
)))) while(rsym = (Symbol*)Queue_iter_next(&rsym_iter)) {
)))) switch (derives(rsym)) {
)))) case derives_nothing:
)))) goto next_rule;
)))) ....
)))) }
)))) }
)))) next_rule: continue;
)))) }
)))
))) while(rule = (Rule*)Queue_iter_next(&rule_iter)) {
))) while(rsym = (Symbol*)Queue_iter_next(&rsym_iter)) {
))) switch (derives(rsym)) {
))) case derives_nothing:
))) break;
))) .... (cases that want to loop use continue)
))) }
))) break;
))) }
))) }
)))
) :
) : you removed a goto but added a
) : fatal bug. I would prefer the goto.
)
) Well yeah, so would I. But what is the bug? I've just reread the code
) and don't see where I've broken it. I'm prepared to be red-faced
) because this has go to be something really obvious, but what?
)
DON'T PANIC.
Your face is going to be just fine. But it's lucky for me that I don't blush.
You didn't misread it. I did. In fact, I read it half a dozen times before I saw
the "break" at the end of the while-loop.
Boy, that's wierd.
No offense, but you won't catch me using this device. Different strokes,
I guess.
Maybe we should start a debate: "Breaks at end of while-loops... considered
harmful?" Oh Nooooooooooooooo!!!
More information about the Comp.lang.c
mailing list