On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 06:09:16PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> > And yes I can see that the whole point of the change is that
> > they want to also forbids this:
> >
> > x()
> > {
> > goto out;
> > out:
> > }
> >
> > and I dislike not being allowed to do the above as well infact ;).
>
> What's wrong with the - more readable - `break;' ?
You meant "return" of course as you can't put a break there (there's no loop).
`return' doesn't define the fast path (but ok it's a minor issue and
I think latest gcc can use some stuff to define fast paths).
In general all I'm saying is that they don't want a label before the end of a
compound statement and that's a not interesting requirement IMHO that will just
force people to use one additional "suprious" `;' after the last label. It
doesn't make the code more readable and it doesn't give any advantage other
than maybe having simplified some formal language definition.
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
