Pascal-style case and C-style break

[MarkMLl]

BTW, I don't miss that particularity of the C-switch, besides one very special case of https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,60218.msg450448.html#msg450448

I don't miss it, since I'm only a C programmer rarely and under duress. However since dislike of the Pascal-style case statement has been a longstanding grumble among non-devotees, I found myself wondering what the opposite of (C-style) break would be since neither (Pascal-style) break nor continue can be used on account of their messing up a surrounding while or repeat, and at that point it occurred to me that certainly in my code this was about the only place that goto was being used.

MarkMLl

[BeniBela]

The goto statement can already target numeric destinations, however these need to be declared as a label nevertheless and that will stay, because Pascal is a language where things need to be declared before use.

Perhaps he meant with numeric goto that you could address the label indirectly


Not this

Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]

1. procedure huh;
2. label 0,1,2;
3. begin
4.   goto 1;
5.   0: writeln('a');
6.   1: writeln('b');
7.   2: writeln('c');
8. end;
9.  

Not this

 

Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]

1. procedure huh;
2. label 0,1,2;
3. var
4.   i: Integer;
5. begin
6.   i := 1;
7.   case i of
8.   0: writeln('a');
9.   1: writeln('b');
10.   2: writeln('c');
11.   end;
12. end;
13.  

but this

Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]

1. procedure huh;
2. label 0,1,2;
3. var
4.   i: Integer;
5. begin
6.   i := 1;
7.   goto (i);
8.   0: writeln('a');
9.   1: writeln('b');
10.   2: writeln('c');
11. end;
12.  

[Thaddy]

Simply = without else....

[MarkMLl]

Perhaps he meant with numeric goto that you could address the label indirectly

Yes, as in the example I posted when I started the thread. Also Sven makes the point that

...the branches of a case-statement are not labels, because they can be ranges as well and thus even if non-declared labels could be used you still can't target the branches of a case-statement with that.

while I was musing on eliminating labels in their entirety and only using goto as the antithesis of (C-style) break in the context of a (Pascal-style) case statement.

MarkMLl

[Zvoni]

Or, as Zvoni wrote, in that particular case with an extra check:

Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]

1.      expectOptionalEtx, expectBcc:
2.                              begin
3.                                if (RecvState = expectOptionalEtx) then begin
4. //           expectOptionalEtx: if ch = ETX then begin
5.                                  bccCount := BccLength;
6.                                  recvState := expectBcc;
7.                                  if (ch = ETX) then begin
8.                                    buffer += ch;
9.                                    break;
10.                                  end;
11.                                end;
12. //            expectBcc:     begin
13.                              if not (ch in ['!'..'~']) then
14.                                break;
15.                              buffer += ch;
16.                              bccCount -= 1;
17.                              if bccCount = 0 then
18.                                recvState := completed
19.                            end
20.           otherwise
21. ...

My statement was more along the lines of

Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]

1. function TSerialThread.recvMessage(serHandle: TSerialHandle; var buffer: string;
2.                                 timeout, limit: integer): boolean;
3.  
4. const
5.   obeyTimeout= true;                    (* Normally true                        *)
6.  
7. type
8.   tRecvState= (expectSOH, expectAddress, expectSeq, expectCtrl, expectPayload,
9.                                 expectHandshake, expectOptionalEtx, expectBcc,
10.                                                                     completed);
11.         Function FuncExpectBCC(Const Ach:Char;var AbccCount:Integer;var ArecvState:tRecvState):Boolean;
12.         Begin          
13.                 Result:=False; 
14.                 if not (Ach in ['!'..'~']) then
15.                    Exit(True);
16.                 buffer += ch;
17.                 AbccCount -= 1;
18.                 if AbccCount = 0 then
19.                    ArecvState := completed;                      
20.         End;
21.  
22. ........
23.  
24.         expectOptionalEtx: if ch = ETX then begin
25.                              buffer += ch;
26.                              bccCount := BccLength;
27.                              recvState := expectBcc (* To process next character *)
28.                            end else begin
29.                              bccCount := BccLength;
30.                              recvState := expectBcc;
31.                              If FuncExpectBCC(ch,bccCount,recvState) Then Break;
32.                            end;
33.         expectBcc:     If FuncExpectBCC(ch,bccCount,recvState) Then Break
34.       otherwise
35.         break                           (* Quite simply can't happen            *)
36.       end
37.   until obeyTimeout and Elapsed(limitTD, limit);
38.  

No Goto or labels or other such nonsense

[alpine]

@Fallthrough:
Huh? Just use consecutive If-Then with an Else-Clause for the last if
If you need to exit the "switch" prematurely move the whole thing to a Function/Procedure

It is my misunderstanding, I thought you've meant to merge cases (the fall through case and the previous one) and then to use if-then to split them again in  the compound operator.

[PascalDragon]

The goto statement can already target numeric destinations, however these need to be declared as a label nevertheless and that will stay, because Pascal is a language where things need to be declared before use.

Perhaps he meant with numeric goto that you could address the label indirectly

I'm aware of what he meant. Which is why I added the part about the branches of the case-statement.

[Zvoni]

@Fallthrough:
Huh? Just use consecutive If-Then with an Else-Clause for the last if
If you need to exit the "switch" prematurely move the whole thing to a Function/Procedure

It is my misunderstanding, I thought you've meant to merge cases (the fall through case and the previous one) and then to use if-then to split them again in  the compound operator.

Ahhh….. ok, now i understand.
Agreed. That is still my technique if i need fall-through.
But any „fall-through“ scenario has to be coded very carefully (order of conditions etc.)