From ilug-admin@linux.ie  Tue Aug 13 10:28:31 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 0E29343C40
	for <jm@localhost>; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 05:21:38 -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 10:21:38 +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 g7CJ7Xb30310 for
    <jm-ilug@jmason.org>; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 20:07:33 +0100
Received: from lugh (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lugh.tuatha.org
    (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA01977; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 20:06:49 +0100
Received: from mail.go2.ie ([62.17.153.101]) by lugh.tuatha.org
    (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA01948 for <ilug@linux.ie>; Mon,
    12 Aug 2002 20:06:40 +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 169D910EB; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 20:06:10 +0100 (IST)
Subject: RE: [ILUG] slashdot EW Dijkstra humor
From: Nick Murtagh <nickm@go2.ie>
To: Kenn Humborg <kenn@bluetree.ie>
Cc: ilug@linux.ie
In-Reply-To: <NBBBIGEGHIGMPCNKHCECEEGKEAAA.kenn@bluetree.ie>
References: <NBBBIGEGHIGMPCNKHCECEEGKEAAA.kenn@bluetree.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8-3mdk
Date: 12 Aug 2002 20:05:58 +0100
Message-Id: <1029179159.9170.14.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 19:56, Kenn Humborg wrote:
> Well, you should consider 'break' inside a 'select' statement
> to be part of the syntax, rather than a control flow modifier.

Why? When it comes down to the assembly level, it gets turned
into some kind of jump instruction. Should I pretend I don't know
this when I'm programming?

> A _mandatory_ part of the syntax, at that.

It's not mandatory. You can leave out the break, and the flow
of control will continue to the next case. Which can be useful
in certain circumstances.

Nick


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


