From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <3e18ac1ed3cec38e7911b3a44d94dc94@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Sun,  6 Aug 2006 01:04:22 -0500
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] rc break
In-Reply-To: <a2e22d20b8b11ab3829bdaf4b9166a33@plan9.bell-labs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 97c1b9c2-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

sure.  but that's a bit counterintutitive, isn't it?  the loop continues
looping without doing anything.  but i should talk,
i'm using c to count scheme-style. =E2=98=BA

is break really that broken?  because of the lack of break,
you see some rc code that looks like it was written for a class with an
expansive no-goto edict. ;-)

- erik

On Sat Aug  5 19:51:13 CDT 2006, geoff@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote:
> One could rewrite the example script as
>=20
> 	# figure out what day we have by subtraction
> 	j =3D (Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec)
> 	c =3D ()
> 	mon =3D ()
> 	for (i in 31 $feb 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31)
> 		if (~ $#mon 0) {
> 			c =3D ($c 1)
> 			if (expr $i '>' $d >/dev/null)
> 				mon =3D $#c
> 			if not
> 				d =3D `{expr $d - $i}
> 		}
>=20
> The lack of break may require recasting the form of a script.