On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, Sean butler wrote:
-> Notice there is no mention of break here. If you would like I could show
-> you how Ritchie defines a "statement." I think however that any good C
-> programmer owns this book and will know how he defines a "statement."
-> I assure you that it is not mandatory for it to contain a break.
In light of such, pardon the mistake. But, what I said was not
"simply wrong", just not correct as per official defintion.
Portability dictates the use of "break" (even if most/all compilers
will not require it), though you appear to be correct in your
statement that it is not required by the ANSI C standard.
->Sure there is. You are "simply wrong" when you make a simple or obvious
->mistake.
I would argue whether or not there is truly such a thing as a simple
mistake. My mistake was based on knowledge derived from rather
unreliable sources (i.e., myself, and compiler warnings from older
versions of gcc), and in making such a blanket statement as I did
(actually, it can be traced back to a fair amount of self-confidence
in results obtained a long while ago, and a failure to retest these
results).
So, yet again, I have proven just how little know. No matter, it's
been a strange month. I'll be happy for the new year.
daniel koepke / dkoepke@california.com
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://democracy.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/08/00 PST