From: anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com   
      
   Thiago Adams:   
      
   > What do you think of this control block?   
   >    do   
   >    {   
   >       FILE f = fopen("file.txt", "r");   
   >   
   >       if (f == NULL) quit; /*goes to else part*/   
   >   
   >       /*success here*/   
   >       for (int i =0; i < 10; i++){   
   >           ...   
   >           if (error) quit;   
   >       }   
   >   
   >    }   
   >    else   
   >    {   
   >       /*some error*/   
   >    }   
      
   I have come to the conclusion that lots of advanced and very   
   speficic control-flow structures are being invented to avoid   
   using `goto' -- a simple and generic solution, with the   
   additoinal bonus of keeping the semantically linear code   
   actually flat.   
      
   Your proposal is not bad: it is keeping the main code flat   
   and saves extracting the `do' part into a separate function   
   (to take advantage of `return`).  The `else' keyword seems   
   misleading, because it is not strictly alternative to the   
   `do' part.  Is it your purpose to re-use C's existing   
   keywords?  If not, then consider `fail` instead of `quit`   
   and `onfail` instead of `else`.  Also, `do' may be renamed   
   `failable', indicating a block with controlled failure.   
      
   P.S.: I am eternally unhappy with the control-flow mechanisms   
         in existing programming languages.   
      
   --   
   ()  ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail   
   /\  www.asciiribbon.org   -- against proprietary attachments   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)