what's the point? do{...}while(FALSE);

[led mike]

CPallini wrote:

the Coding Orrors forum.

What means "Coding Orros"? I know what Coding Oreos[^] are but never heard of Coding Orros.

led mike

[led mike]

Maybe they were trying to exercise the compilers optimization capabilities?

led mike

[Like2Byte]

Just figured it out. Interspersed within the {..} are #define'd a macro (ESCAPEIF(returnvalue) calls. It's defined to 'break' if an error occurrs. At the end of the function is the cleanup thus: do { ret = foo(); //returns a '1' BREAKONERROR(ret); } WHILE(FALSE); //perform cleanup (ie: release memory where needed) Guess I should have followed the white rabbit a little more ..or took the bluepill.

[Waldermort]

It's better than using the ugly GOTO method. In a loop you have the option of using break and continue. In this case it's a loop to be run once, unless directed to do otherwise.

Waldermort

[El Corazon]

led mike wrote:

What means "Coding Orros"?

Coding Orros refers to members of a family tree: http://www.genealogytoday.com/surname/finder.mv?Surname=Orros[^] who are better at making pizza than coding. http://www.yellowbot.com/orros-pizza-grill-saint-johns-fl.html[^] although obvious to us, it was not obvious to them. After seeing the pizza examples in head-first-design-patterns, you begin to realize how they thought that any pizza maker is automatically a programmer. As you see, the results of pizza makers writing software is extra cheese in our code. :-D

_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)

[CPallini]

And I even made it bold. :-O :sigh:

If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke

[led mike]

CPallini wrote:

And I even made it bold.

I've always said "That Pallini is nothing if not bold"  :-D

led mike

[led mike]

WalderM wrote:

It's better than using the ugly GOTO method.

better how? If you mean more readable I would argue that at best it is indistinguishably better.

led mike

[Nemanja Trifunovic]

WalderMt's better than using the ugly GOTO method.

I agree that this code is most probably the replacement for goto, but dissagree that it is better. It is even worse, because it hides the intention.

Programming Blog utf8-cpp

[CPallini]

goto is better.

If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke

[BadKarma]

CPallini wrote:

goto is better.

Youre my HERO

codito ergo sum

[Stephen Hewitt]

goto is dangerous in C++ if care is not taken because jumping out of scope will NOT result in the destructors of any C++ objects in the scope.

Steve

[CPallini]

C++ has try-catch blocks, usually goto is not needed. :)

If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke