Thread: continue in while loops

This sounds like an excellent case of bad design. But assuming the second loop isn't nested in the first then you could use a variation of continue called goto. But before relying on goto, consider your algorithm and how you can improve it because generally, when you use a local jump in your code it's because you didn't think the design through well enough.

Code:

loop1:
  while ( foo ) {
    .
    .
  }
  while ( bar ) {
    .
    .
  }
  if ( flag == DO_OVER )
    goto loop1;

I fully expect some of the anti-goto people to scream in horror at this point. "No! How can Prelude suggest the use of goto?! I thought she knew it was evil!", just note before making such a post that I'll laugh heartily before responding appropriately

-Prelude

Here's a better idea:

Code:

do switch( choice )
{
    case CHOICE_LOOP_ONE: function1( ); break;
    case CHOICE_LOOP_TWO: function2( ); break;
} while( choice != CHOICE_BREAK );

No need for a goto.

Quzah.

>No need for a goto.
Exactly, there's almost never a need for goto. The problem is in the design. However, to solve that particular problem without changing the design of the code you'd need goto...but as I said, that's a bad design.

-Prelude

Oooh! Here we go:

Make function1 and function2 recursive, and so they call eachother! Something like:

Code:

function1
{
    do choice
        if choice == 1 function1( )
        if choice == 2 function2( )
        else exit(0);
}

Quzah.

Hehe, and then you get to complain about how everyone who took you seriously writes bad code, right?

-Prelude