From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,459feef56669b92d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-03 06:56:56 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.vmunix.org!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!news.iks-jena.de!not-for-mail From: Lutz Donnerhacke Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: "continue/next" for "loop" Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 14:56:56 +0000 (UTC) Organization: IKS GmbH Jena Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: taranis.iks-jena.de X-Trace: branwen.iks-jena.de 1067871416 13077 217.17.192.37 (3 Nov 2003 14:56:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@iks-jena.de NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 14:56:56 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1982 Date: 2003-11-03T14:56:56+00:00 List-Id: * Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen wrote: > It seems you are looking for a multi-level "continue" statement :-) Yep. I wonder that it is missing. > You need to somehow store the results of your tests if you want to > avoid the goto, because this information is used outside the scope of > the inner loop. A boolean should suffice, but is the code any more > readable? No, the code will blow up. > After looking at these alternatives, I would probably stick with the goto. Yes. There is no "continue loop_name" like "exit loop_name". May I suggest ...