Re: Re[2]: why no "continue" statement for loops?

["Dylan Cuthbert" <dylan@...>]

To Tuomo Valkonen:

Labeled break or continue would be great, and I'd prefer that to the break
[n] syntax too. (although it does smell like a goto I suppose)

To Enrico:

Sometimes the application requires different styles of programming. (hence
different languages such as pascal for math related tasks etc).

I have to write fast efficient code to *extreme* deadlines (as do all video
games programmers), we also get requests for change at a much higher rate
than other programmers - for the most part, game designers actually sit with
the programmer getting them to (moaning at them to) change things
continuously.  The main difference between regular programming is that when
scripting for games you very often don't have a clear objective/goal for the
code - it gets molded *whilst you work*, you can only seriously write
functional *neat* programmer-karma code when you have a clear goal
beforehand and a cup of tea afterhand. :-)

---------------------------------
Q-Games, Dylan Cuthbert.
http://www.q-games.com

"Enrico Colombini" <erix@erix.it> wrote in message
200306241001.45075.erix@erix.it">news:200306241001.45075.erix@erix.it...
On Monday 23 June 2003 22:32, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
> Exactly these same arguments can be used to justify 'goto' and 'goto'
> actually is a very intuitively clear construct while I wouldn't say the
> same of whatever [N]. Numerical levels have an awful kludgy feel to them;
> labelled break/continue would be cleaner, but I still don't like them.
>
> Maybe people should just organize their code better?

You have my sympathy. I've been programming in C for 20 years without ever
using "break" (except in "switch", of course) or "continue"... despite
coming
from non-structured BASIC. I find readability and ease of maintenance much
more important than saving a few cycles, or a few minutes of coding time.

  Enrico