From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-Id: <200108191617.RAA12947@localhost.localdomain>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Sam question 
In-Reply-To: Message from Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za> 
   of "Sun, 19 Aug 2001 14:23:42 +0200." <20010819142342.S6233@cackle.proxima.alt.za> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Steve Kilbane <steve@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 17:17:30 +0100
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e2d18b52-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> The "try/catch" approach makes sense, but
> a clean (nevermind elegant) implementations would have to pass
> a lot of criticism.

Except that breaking out of several loops can be normal program
behaviour, rather than an error condition. It's not out-of-bounds,
necessarily.

> Yet the alternative is the dreaded "goto"

Not really. Being able to name loops and exit or continue a
particular nesting loop is a safe middle ground - it just
happens to be missing from C. There's inner-loop-only, and
there's goto-anywhere-in-this-function, which is a shame.

steve