Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: goto considered helpful (Was: question about linker)
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 14:44:54 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <20241212144454.00003b83@yahoo.com>
References: <vi54e9$3ie0o$1@dont-email.me>
	<vifcll$1q9rj$1@dont-email.me>
	<vifiib$1s07p$1@dont-email.me>
	<87ldwx10gv.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<vimtt4$27vv$1@dont-email.me>
	<86ser1kgp5.fsf@linuxsc.com>
	<vit69t$1qfgg$1@dont-email.me>
	<87ldwtzlc0.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<vitjgg$1tukq$2@dont-email.me>
	<vj1bss$325uo$1@dont-email.me>
	<vj1h4i$335q1$2@dont-email.me>
	<vj1mhi$34p7h$1@dont-email.me>
	<vj1prj$35je4$1@dont-email.me>
	<vj7dup$he7i$1@dont-email.me>
	<vjasuj$17uod$1@dont-email.me>
	<vjc87h$1apid$1@paganini.bofh.team>
	<vjcbe1$1jns0$1@dont-email.me>
	<87wmg5x4b1.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<vjd96b$1pbed$1@dont-email.me>
	<87jzc5wx3s.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<vjdde8$1q2to$2@dont-email.me>
	<87frmtwuzq.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 13:44:01 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6d183731774498c4d8f7959a66fdc537";
	logging-data="2234448"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18dncvWgnOh0VYlosy769rKW4pLxu4CucM="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XhBO3nC4t6Uz5YcRr1fPIAfAMgA=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.19.1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
Bytes: 3016

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 17:27:53 -0800
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:

> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> [...]
> > My experience of multi-level break is that there are two main
> > use-cases:
> >
> >  * Used in the current loop only (not necessarily the innermost to
> > an observer). This is the most common
> >
> >  * Used to exit the outermost loop
> >
> > So to support these, named or even numbered loops are not
> > necessary. (Eg. I use 'exit' or 'exit all'.)  
> 
> I would oppose a change to C that only applied to innermost and
> outermost loops.  For one thing, I'm not aware of any other language
> that does this (except perhaps your unnamed one).  For another,
> it's easy enough to define a feature that handles any arbitrary
> nesting levels, by applying names (labels) to loops.
>

The better solution is education.
Convince teachers in unis and colleges that goto is *not* considered
harmful for this particular use case. Convince them to teach that 
attempts to avoid goto [for this particular use case] are really
considered harmful. If you don't believe in authority of yourself then
ask for help from somebody famous that share this view. I would guess
that nearly all famous C programmers share it.