Re: else ladders practice

fir wrote:

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
>

second wersion  would be the one based on labels and goto
a:
b:
n!
c:
d:
gere n! wuld symbolize goto n and the different operator means dfference among "call" ang "jmp" on assembly level and lack of block
would denote lack on ret on assembly level
im not sure byut maybe that those two versions span all needed
(not sure as to this, but as said one sxpresses jumps and one calls
on assembly level

>
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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>