Break in a for loop
-
Calling break inside nested for loops breaks all loops or just the inner loop where break is found? Do I need to do this to exit all loops?
bool breakouter = false;
for(int x=0;x -
Calling break inside nested for loops breaks all loops or just the inner loop where break is found? Do I need to do this to exit all loops?
bool breakouter = false;
for(int x=0;xOnly the inner loop. If you want to break out of more loops you can do something like:
for(int x=0;x
Mircea -
Calling break inside nested for loops breaks all loops or just the inner loop where break is found? Do I need to do this to exit all loops?
bool breakouter = false;
for(int x=0;xProbably one of the last valid usecase for goto. Especially if more than 2 inner loops. Obviously, if your loops are doing many resources allocations, you'll need to do manual cleaning.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
-
Probably one of the last valid usecase for goto. Especially if more than 2 inner loops. Obviously, if your loops are doing many resources allocations, you'll need to do manual cleaning.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
Thank you guys
-
Probably one of the last valid usecase for goto. Especially if more than 2 inner loops. Obviously, if your loops are doing many resources allocations, you'll need to do manual cleaning.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
-
Probably one of the last valid usecase for goto. Especially if more than 2 inner loops. Obviously, if your loops are doing many resources allocations, you'll need to do manual cleaning.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
Maximilien wrote:
Probably one of the last valid usecase for goto. Especially if more than 2 inner loops.
There were lots of valid 'goto' use cases cases, before for loops, while loops, and arbitrarily nested if-else, were invented. Structured exit from multiply nested loops were invented 40+ years ago. In 1980 vintage CHILL, you could do
outermost: intermediate: inner: exit intermediate;
exit intermediate; would skip the "more intermediate statements" as well as further intermediate iterations, going directly to "more outermost statements" and continue with further outermost iterations. If it rather said exit outermost;, the "more outermost statements" would be skipped as well, and the outermost loop would be left. exit would be a short form of exit innermost; This construct never made it into mainstream language such as the C derived ones. One partial explanation is differences in label semantics: In CHILL, a label identifies a block, not a point in the code. Furthermore, a statement is a block; it need not be embraced to be labeled. I would be willing to trade a lot of other 'improvements' in more recent language extensions in favor of something like this. Some concepts were not well developed in 1980. If a language of today were to introduce such a multi-level exit, it would probably come with something 'finally'-like mechanisms to do required cleanup operations regardless of loop exit method.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
-
Maximilien wrote:
Probably one of the last valid usecase for goto. Especially if more than 2 inner loops.
There were lots of valid 'goto' use cases cases, before for loops, while loops, and arbitrarily nested if-else, were invented. Structured exit from multiply nested loops were invented 40+ years ago. In 1980 vintage CHILL, you could do
outermost: intermediate: inner: exit intermediate;
exit intermediate; would skip the "more intermediate statements" as well as further intermediate iterations, going directly to "more outermost statements" and continue with further outermost iterations. If it rather said exit outermost;, the "more outermost statements" would be skipped as well, and the outermost loop would be left. exit would be a short form of exit innermost; This construct never made it into mainstream language such as the C derived ones. One partial explanation is differences in label semantics: In CHILL, a label identifies a block, not a point in the code. Furthermore, a statement is a block; it need not be embraced to be labeled. I would be willing to trade a lot of other 'improvements' in more recent language extensions in favor of something like this. Some concepts were not well developed in 1980. If a language of today were to introduce such a multi-level exit, it would probably come with something 'finally'-like mechanisms to do required cleanup operations regardless of loop exit method.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
The proprietary language in which I worked for many years had exactly what you describe. A label was for a
BLOCK/ENDBLOCKthat you couldEXIT. A label could also precedeIF,DO, and the equivalents ofswitch) without using theBLOCKkeyword. The language was designed in the late 70s. This was in the telecom sector, so they probably took the design from CHILL.Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing. -
Calling break inside nested for loops breaks all loops or just the inner loop where break is found? Do I need to do this to exit all loops?
bool breakouter = false;
for(int x=0;xWhenever I have such questions and I have them often I experiment w/ brief simple code and observe the behavior.
