Re: Suggested extention of the break statement
* Gerard J. Cerchio:
I would like have a break statement within a try statement transfer
control
out of the try. The try is already a transfer control statement and there
is
no current sematic for a break within the try.
This use of the break statement eliminates extraneous labels and goto's,
is
more succinct than a no-op throw/catch and implicitly indicates control
remains within the scope of the enclosing method, just as the goto does.
Comments?
First of all, try to in general use RAII (objects with proper
destructors, handling clean-up in destructors) rather than try-catch.
And second, it seems that you're addressing the case of trying to do all
too much in one function, for which it's usually a better solution to
break that large function up into smaller, more focused functions.
That said,
// A
int foo()
{
try
{
// Some code
return 1;
// More code.
return 2;
}
catch( ... ) { std::terminate(); }
}
// B
#define BEGIN_BREAKABLE for(;;){
#define END_BREAKABLE break;}
int bar()
{
int result = 1;
BEGIN_BREAKABLE
try
{
// Some code
break;
// More code
result = 2;
}
catch( ... ) { std::terminate(); }
END_BREAKABLE
return result;
}
It's very difficult to see where you'd need labels and gotos.
Cheers, and hth.,
- Alf
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]