Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: fir <fir@grunge.pl>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: else ladders practice
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2024 16:02:16 +0100
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <6728E1F8.2090102@grunge.pl>
References: <3deb64c5b0ee344acd9fbaea1002baf7302c1e8f@i2pn2.org> <vg0t3j$2ruor$1@dont-email.me> <78eabb4054783e30968ae5ffafd6b4ff2e5a5f17@i2pn2.org> <864j4pv76h.fsf@linuxsc.com> <6726C97C.4080807@grunge.pl> <86ldxztzpk.fsf@linuxsc.com> <vgacoi$tr9q$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="920037"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="+ydHcGjgSeBt3Wz3WTfKefUptpAWaXduqfw5xdfsuS0";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:27.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/27.0 SeaMonkey/2.24
To: Bart <bc@freeuk.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vgacoi$tr9q$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2875
Lines: 54

Bart wrote:
> On 04/11/2024 04:00, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> fir <fir@grunge.pl> writes:
>>
>>> Tim Rentsch wrote:
>
>>>> With the understanding that I am offering more than my own opinion,
>>>> I can say that I might use any of the patterns mentioned, depending
>>>> on circumstances.  I don't think any one approach is either always
>>>> right or always wrong.
>>>
>>> maybe, but some may heve some strong arguments (for use this and not
>>> that) i may overlook
>>
>> I acknowledge the point, but you haven't gotten any arguments,
>> only opinions.
>
> Pretty much everything about PL design is somebody's opinion.

overally when you think and discuss such thing some conclusions may do
appear - and often soem do for me, though they are not always very clear 
or 'hard'

overally from this thread i noted that switch (which i already dont 
liked) is bad.. note those two elements of switch it is "switch"
and "Case" are in weird not obvious relation in c (and what will it
work when you mix it etc)

what i concluded was than if you do thing such way


a {  }  //this is analogon to case - named block
b {  }  //this is analogon to case - named block
n()   // here by "()" i noted call of some wariable that mey yeild 
'call' to a ,b, c, d, e, f  //(in that case na would be soem enum or 
pointer)
c(  ) //this is analogon to case - named block
d(  ) //this is analogon to case - named block


then everything is clear - this call just selects and calls block , and 
block itself are just definitions and are skipped in execution until 
"called"


this is example of some conclusion for me from thsi thread - and i think 
such codes as this my own initial example should be probably done such 
way (though it is not c, i know