🚀 go-pugleaf

Tony Hawkins (hawkins@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE) wrote:

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

	The for loop is going to execute again unless i >= 10

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

	The for loop is not going to execute here no matter what i is.

I understand what you are saying about  "break loopi".  It would be
an interesting construct indeed.  At the risk of being 0 and 
branded a heretic I think the real problem with goto is that we are 
taught that goto is evil, so we never believe that a goto would 
be the best choice for a particular construct.  I know that purists
are going to scream that rethinking the construct and the goto could
be eliminated.  This is true but in the "real world" it is not
always possible and/or practical.

-- 
These thoughts are mine and mine alone.    I can say that, right?

EMAIL: jab@bowtech.erinet.com 		|  Tomorrow is not to be 
SMAIL  9221 N Main St			|  feared.  It will pass.
Dayton, OH 45415-1126			|