From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <68947f82dd2ff93603d7352019e90b28@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Sat,  5 Aug 2006 23:25:06 -0500
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] rc break
In-Reply-To: <44D506BB.2010901@asgaard.homelinux.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 97a0c0e6-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

well, td knows more than i, but doesn't this code look ugly without the
benefit of a break statement?

fn parseargs { endarg = '' {
	while(! ~ $#argv 0){
		switch($argv(1)^$endarg){
		case -r
			earf r usage
		case -f
			earf f usage
		case *
			endarg = y
			cmd = ($cmd $argv(1))
			Shift argv
		}
	}
}}

wouldn't this be better

fn parseargs {
	while(! ~ $#argv 0){
		switch($argv(1)){
		case -r
			earf r usage
		case -f
			earf f usage
		case *
			break;
		}
	}
	cmd = $argv;
}

On Sat Aug  5 16:01:54 CDT 2006, noselasd@asgaard.homelinux.org wrote:
> erik quanstrom wrote:
> > is there some reason that rc has no "break" statement?
> The rc paper has some notes on this :
> 
> "... I deleted the builtins export, readonly, break, continue, read,
> return, set, times and unset because they seem redundant or only 
> marginally useful."
> 
> > for example:
> > 
> > 	for(i in $fu){
> > 		...
> > 		if(endcond)
> > 			break;
> > 	}
> > 
> > - erik
>