🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2 Aug 1995, Gang Zhang wrote
:   Suppose you have the following:
:     for(i=0;i<10;i++)
:       for(j=0;j<10;j++){
:         /*  some other code here to set condition */
:         if(condition)goto Done;
:       } 
:     
:     Done:

dmi@byron.apana.org.au (DMI) writes
:Just replace the "goto Done;" with "break;" 

In article <41cke4$gtd@sparcserver.lrz-muenchen.de>, ua302aa@sun2.lrz-muenchen.de (Kurt Watzka) writes
: Which will change the semantics of the piece of code, but yes, the
: string "goto" will no longer be visible to the reader. Gang Zhang
: wants to break out of two nested loops, and break breaks out of 
: exactly one control construct.
: 
: Replacing "goto", as used in the above example, with "break" does
: not improve the structure of your program. The conditional jump
: will still be there, and all you have done is add some syntactic
: shugar to it.

If break were alloud to break out of both loops, it would be a most useful
bit of sugar indeed.  For the problem with "goto" is its structure-breaking;
the use of "break" assures that control gos to the end of a syntactic
construct: the end of enclozind loop (or *sigh* "switch", but therefore a
from-deeper ending "break" is even more needed).  If this were alloud,
much would be gaind:

     iLoop: for(i=0;i<10;i++)
       for(j=0;j<10;j++){
         /*  some other code here to set condition */
         if(condition) break iLoop;
       } 

It would be even better if this label were syntacticlie separat from
that which "goto" can pass control to.  If this were the first C, I
would require a kieword, "label", for "goto", and uze the colon for
"break" and "continue".