🚀 go-pugleaf

<>

Hope I didn't change the meaning of the parties prior discussion,
but in the following problem, why not package the loop as a
procedure/subroutine/function.  Clearly, it is being used to perform
an atomic action anyway.

Wayne A. Christopher (faustus@ic.Berkeley.EDU) writes:
>In article <2827@enea.se>, sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
>> ... Ada as I see it have
>> the perfect solution: The loop variable is declared in the FOR-
>> statement, and is thus not accessible afterwards.
>
>Here's the problem with that construct:  I often write
>	for (i = 0; i < max; i++)
>		if (something)
>			break;
>	if (i == max)
>          ...
> >If the loop variable is inaccessible outside of the loop there's
> >no way to tell how it terminated, except by using an extra flag,
> >which is ugly.

Here's the way I do it by better packaging:

int findSomething ( max )
int max;
{  int i;

   for (i = 0; i < max; i++)
      if (something) return i;

   /* not found */
   return max;
   }

No extra flag, some call overhead, and a re-usable commponent.  What
could be better (besides no call overhead :-)?

On a similar vein, one occasionally sees calls for new control
structures to supports some really baroque nesting of if statements.
What every happened to packaging the embedded if conditions as
subroutines?