Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?

From: Tomas Szepe (szepe@pinerecords.com)
Date: Sun Jan 12 2003 - 15:26:31 EST

Next message: Robert Love: "Re: [PATCH] add explicit Pentium II support"
Previous message: David Ford: "Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?"
In reply to: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu: "Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?"
Next in thread: yodaiken@fsmlabs.com: "Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> [Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu]
>
> The real problem is that C doesn't have a good multi-level "break" construct.
> On the other hand, I don't know of any language that has a good one - some
> allow "break 3;" to break 3 levels- but that's still bad because you get
> screwed if somebody adds an 'if' clause....

Not necessarily. A good multilevel break/continue implementation will
only work on loop blocks, not conditionals.

-- 
Tomas Szepe <szepe@pinerecords.com>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Robert Love: "Re: [PATCH] add explicit Pentium II support"
Previous message: David Ford: "Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?"
In reply to: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu: "Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?"
Next in thread: yodaiken@fsmlabs.com: "Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 22:00:41 EST