for those of you purists that don't like break, continue and goto

[honey the codewitch]

throw is worse than goto, IMO for control flow.

When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.

[Nand32]

I love goto. Lets go-back-to VB. :-D I've made use of gotos to a great extent during my VB times. like, On Error: GoTo the magical origin of the universe. An equally 'powerful' instruction - JMP. But JMP is never ashamed of being JMP, cuz it's assembly. You can go roam anywhere you want, it's got the license. :laugh:

[Jorgen Andersson]

Throw doesn't belong to the control flow. Oh, maybe I'm a bit purist after all.

Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello

[honey the codewitch]

ugh, VB. I use goto in some of my code. Perfectly acceptable place to use GOTO - generated state machine code:

public static bool AcceptsByte(Grimoire.ParseContext pc)
{
pc.EnsureStarted();
if (-1 == pc.Current) return false;
if ((48 == pc.Current))
{
pc.Advance();
goto AcceptsByte_s1;
}
if ((49 == pc.Current))
{
pc.Advance();
goto AcceptsByte_s2;
}
if ((50 == pc.Current))
{
pc.Advance();
goto AcceptsByte_s4;
}
if ((51 <= pc.Current && 57 >= pc.Current))
{
pc.Advance();
goto AcceptsByte_s3;
}
return false;
AcceptsByte_s1:
if (-1 == pc.Current) return true;
return -1 == pc.Advance();
AcceptsByte_s2:
if (-1 == pc.Current) return true;
if ((48 <= pc.Current && 57 >= pc.Current))
{
pc.Advance();
goto AcceptsByte_s3;
}
return -1 == pc.Advance();
AcceptsByte_s3:
if (-1 == pc.Current) return true;
if ((48 <= pc.Current && 57 >= pc.Current))
{
pc.Advance();
goto AcceptsByte_s1;
}
return -1 == pc.Advance();
AcceptsByte_s4:
if (-1 == pc.Current) return true;
if ((48 <= pc.Current && 52 >= pc.Current))
{
pc.Advance();
goto AcceptsByte_s3;
}
if ((53 == pc.Current))
{
pc.Advance();
goto AcceptsByte_s5;
}
if ((54 <= pc.Current && 57 >= pc.Current))
{
pc.Advance();
goto AcceptsByte_s1;
}
return -1 == pc.Advance();
AcceptsByte_s5:
if (-1 == pc.Current) return true;
if ((48 <= pc.Current && 52 >= pc.Current))
{
pc.Advance();
goto AcceptsByte_s1;
}
return -1 == pc.Advance();
}

but then I wouldn't write that code by hand. Too error prone.

When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.

[honey the codewitch]

i mean, i agree that it shouldn't, but it causes control flow changes and can be used that way. but like i said, i agree. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.

[Lost User]

If you enjoy pain try mixing throw with interop. (sure way to properly destroy documents and pst files.)

Message Signature (Click to edit ->)

[GuyThiebaut]

honey the codewitch wrote:

My guess is that would put you in the minority.

I agree, my experience is that as a generalisation us developers have very strong opinions. At the age of 49 I have found that I no longer have the desire to get into arguments over this sort of thing - as in six months time the 'best practise' recommendation will in all likelihood have switched.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

― Christopher Hitchens

[honey the codewitch]

oooh. Another place i like to throw is in static constructors, just to get absolutely everyone's BAC up. :laugh: I'm kidding. I'm not a sadist.

When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.

[Nand32]

At times, the purpose of the search might be just to find the index of the valueToFind. Break keeps the index safe?

(JS)
var arr =[0,1,2,3,4,5];
var valueToFind = 3;

for(i=0;i

[honey the codewitch]

an ironic amen to that. I'm a bit younger, but grew tired of the holy rolling, compounded with me leaving the field and no longer being required to write "team" code, I can just do my own thing As a result I've become a bit more buddhist when it comes to most things coding. There are still certain hills I'll die on though, I admit.

When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.

[Nand32]

Yep, goto on a lengthier code is definitely not meant for the human eyes. :)

[honey the codewitch]

what's cool about that code though? It's directly translatable from visual graphs of the state objects it represents. I use graphviz to visualize them, and you can see right in the graph where the code matches up. It's beautiful - a 1:1 translation. So the code actually is human readable, you just need the map (the visual graph) for it.

When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.

[Jorgen Andersson]

I've seen MS themselves doing it. Sometimes when external code that you don't have control over lacks certain functionality, it might be your only choice. (been there, done that. X| )

Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello

[honey the codewitch]

right? that's why i *never* throw! kidding! but in seriousness I take great pains to prevent the users of my code from having to catch exceptions on failure if they don't want them. Like I'll provide TryXXXX to complement XXXX Pck: Code Roundup and Quick Start Guide[^] In PCK I have an elaborate error handling system whereby it finds errors and continues processing only (optionally) throwing an exception at the end with ALL the errors it encountered. Otherwise they're reported as "messages" with different severity/errorlevels probably the most elaborate exception handling i've had to do in managed code.

When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.

[Sander Rossel]

Depending on the length of the array, just let it loop :D I rarely use break or continue (break slightly more often, but probably only a handful in my entire career). I've never used goto, except to mock you I think :D I'd use FirstOrDefault here (which probably uses a break, I don't know). This kind of functionality is embedded in .NET, so why would I write my own? But if I had to pick, I'd choose the break, which far more clearly communicates intent than i=arr.Length;.

honey the codewitch wrote:

} // braces copyright Sander Rossel

So proud of my honeycode the witch :D

Best, Sander sanderrossel.com Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly

[honey the codewitch]

if code is hard to write, it should be hard to read. :laugh: i'm a sucker for symmetry.

When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.

[Lost User]

I have even encountered this in pseudocode, where the author could easily have added a `break` to his made-up exposition-purposes-only language but chose a more obfuscated way instead.

[honey the codewitch]

right, but in the OP i limited i to the loop scope, but yeah.

When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.

[Night Fox Localhost]

I prefer break statements. It is not suitable for big projects it might be confusing. I try my level best to write clean code!

[Gary R Wheeler]

Because the second fragment duplicates knowledge of the loop's termination condition. You have to remember to adjust it in two places. The first fragment is therefore more robust.

Software Zen: delete this;