From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net>
Message-ID: <3EB9EA8C.40001@null.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <20030501160047.7231.qmail@g.bio.cse.psu.edu>, <20030507124006.D26796@cackle.proxima.alt.za>
Subject: Re: [9fans] same functions everywhere
Date: Thu,  8 May 2003 09:08:27 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: a3579f0a-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

Lucio De Re wrote:
> 	while (x < 100 && a[x] != v) {

Of course there is a well-known "kludge" when the array
has been allocated with an extra slot that can be safely
written:
	a[100] = v;	// sentinel
	while (a[x] != v) {
which speeds the loop up.  The obvious test at the end
distinguishes between "found" and "not found".

I'm not suggesting fine-grained exceptions for such
application unless tightly integrated into the language.
For Standard C at present we seem to be limited to using
setjmp/longjmp, which has too much overhead on most
platforms.