what's the point? do{...}while(FALSE);
-
I've come across some code that is structured like this: do { //stuff... } while(FALSE); What's the difference between that and just doing the items that are in stuff WITHOUT the do-while(FALSE) "loop"?:confused:
-
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.
-
I've come across some code that is structured like this: do { //stuff... } while(FALSE); What's the difference between that and just doing the items that are in stuff WITHOUT the do-while(FALSE) "loop"?:confused:
It's better than using the ugly
GOTOmethod. In a loop you have the option of usingbreakandcontinue. In this case it's a loop to be run once, unless directed to do otherwise.Waldermort
-
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 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 wrote:
the Coding Orrors forum.
What means "Coding Orros"? I know what Coding Oreos[^] are but never heard of Coding Orros.
led mike
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 -
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 -
It's better than using the ugly
GOTOmethod. In a loop you have the option of usingbreakandcontinue. In this case it's a loop to be run once, unless directed to do otherwise.Waldermort
-
It's better than using the ugly
GOTOmethod. In a loop you have the option of usingbreakandcontinue. In this case it's a loop to be run once, unless directed to do otherwise.Waldermort
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. -
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.
gotois 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 -
gotois 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 -
gotois 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 Clarkegotois 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
-
gotois 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
C++hastry-catchblocks, usuallygotois 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