I am not like break(x) it also make improvement my procedure was sensitive, i must count how many loop i have in, and i must care if i added a new loop around the code that looped (hmm bad english).
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Andreas Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > C provides the infinitely-abusable goto statement, and labels to branch > to. Formally the goto is never necessary and in practice it is almost always > easy to write code without it. We have not used goto in this book. > > Nonetheless , we will suggest a few situations where goto's may find a > place. The most common use is to abandon processing in some deeply nested > structure, such as breaking out of two loops at once. The break statement > cannot be used directly since it leaves only the innermost loop.... > > ..... > > Although we are not dogmatic about a matter, it does seem that goto > statements should be used sparingly, if at all. > > > > > I agree, the goto should only be used to IMPROVE code readability. > > About break. I would like to see an implementation of Break(x) where x is > the number of loops to break out of. > Correction: I would not like this, I would LOVE it. > > Andreas > > > > _______________________________________________ > fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org > http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal > -- Zaher Dirkey _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
