From ilug-admin@linux.ie  Tue Aug 13 10:28:11 2002
Return-Path: <ilug-admin@linux.ie>
Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.netnoteinc.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C827043C61
	for <jm@localhost>; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 05:21:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from phobos [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 13 Aug 2002 10:21:33 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lugh.tuatha.org (root@lugh.tuatha.org [194.125.145.45]) by
    dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7CIsDb29808 for
    <jm-ilug@jmason.org>; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 19:54:13 +0100
Received: from lugh (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lugh.tuatha.org
    (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA01058; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 19:52:57 +0100
Received: from mail.go2.ie ([62.17.153.101]) by lugh.tuatha.org
    (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA01032 for <ilug@linux.ie>; Mon,
    12 Aug 2002 19:52:51 +0100
X-Authentication-Warning: lugh.tuatha.org: Host [62.17.153.101] claimed to
    be mail.go2.ie
Received: from k100-50.bas1.dbn.dublin.eircom.net
    (k100-50.bas1.dbn.dublin.eircom.net [159.134.100.50]) by mail.go2.ie
    (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECD5D10F2 for <ilug@linux.ie>; Mon, 12 Aug 2002
    19:52:17 +0100 (IST)
Subject: Re: [ILUG] slashdot EW Dijkstra humor
From: Nick Murtagh <nickm@go2.ie>
To: ilug@linux.ie
In-Reply-To: <200208121109.g7CB9WfE006890@sionnach.ireland.sun.com>
References: <200208121109.g7CB9WfE006890@sionnach.ireland.sun.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8-3mdk
Date: 12 Aug 2002 19:52:06 +0100
Message-Id: <1029178327.9147.3.camel@gemini.windmill>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: ilug-admin@linux.ie
Errors-To: ilug-admin@linux.ie
X-Mailman-Version: 1.1
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Irish Linux Users' Group <ilug.linux.ie>
X-Beenthere: ilug@linux.ie

On Mon, 2002-08-12 at 12:09, Albert White - SUN Ireland wrote:
> If you want to stop in the middle of that because some condition is set then 
> you probably should have used a while loop instead of `for`:
> i:=0
> flag:=false
> while [ i != 100 && flag != true ]
> do
> 	....
> 	# found our special case set flag to jump out of loop
> 	flag:=true
> 	....
> 	i++;
> done
> 
> If you're using a break or similar construct in a while loop then you might 
> want to rethink your guard condition.

Good point, I didn't think of that. However, that doesn't help with a
case statement, which IMHO is cleaner than using an if statement if you
have a lot of branches... but then again maybe that should be refactored
away with polymorphism :)


-- 
Irish Linux Users' Group: ilug@linux.ie
http://www.linux.ie/mailman/listinfo/ilug for (un)subscription information.
List maintainer: listmaster@linux.ie


