>break
Break
>goto
>if
>Java
>while
>return
>while
>boolean ? expression1 : expression2;
for(;;)
>try
>catch
>continue
>class
else if
>object
how do you break out of a loop if you don't know when the result you need is gonna happen?
if err != nil {
>~class_name
return _, err
}
oops
>.then
>finally
>case
>int main
Some bools and lots of ifs
Oh and ...&& continuechecker in the while loop
Ez
>public static void main
flag it with an extra break variable in the loop condition, set flag when you detect it
slightly easier to debug since after loop exit variable will stay changed as opposed to a break that could've come from anywhere and you need to go through the execution line by line like you're a QA monkey
>typedef
(String args[])
>{
>}
How do you break an outer loop from an inner loop?
>;
OP is just playing. Break is a perfectly valid keyword to use. The options for early out is (aside from certain functional programming ideas) having an extra condition to check every time through the loop or using break. Between the two break is obviously superior as it doesn't imply an additional compare every time through the loop. And the actual version that replicates a break is setting a flag and then doing continue;
Which isn't any better at all.
That said breaks aren't labeled usually. Which sucks. Pointlessly limited. Modern languages tend to remedy this.
Oh, you mean you have a shitty debugger which doesn't keep track of the execution path? That sounds like an excellent reason to fuck up your code.
You break both loops. In older languages that requires a flag or a goto. People have an aversion to goto so I recommend flags to silence to lambs. But labeled break statements solve this.
>(
>print
What the fuck it's a screen, not a printer!
> Labeled break statement
Why not just have a label after the outer loop
>void
Is it a static void into eternal nothingness?
Well as I said people dislike goto arbitrarily even if it's perfectly clear to have a loop exit label and using it.
Labeled breaks is a way of making one aspect of them official and more accepted. Though usually the label goes before the loop statement in these. Which I prefer just slightly because I prefer to be presented the information in that order. So I guess that's another reason.
underage
>scope resolution operator
Get out gramps >:(
>#include
StringBuilder()
>defer
>program can exit from more than one reference
>while(true)
>#pragma omp simd aligned(row) linear(row)
>if (condition) // executes if condition is met
>rand()
>#pragma once
>public boolean isValid()
>if()....
>>if()....
>>>return false
>>else if()...
>>>return false;
>return true;
>else
>///////////////////////////////////////////////
>int i=0;
>for(foo f: bar)
>>bar[i++]=2*f
>print(\n)
>boolean ? (boolean ? expression : expression) : (boolean ? expression : expression)
Kys nigger. You've obviously never worked with embedded systems.
Why would someone write for(;;) instead of while(1)?
for (;;) doesn't make the condition check that while (1) does
It doesn't matter if you let your compiler at all optimise though
explain
>template
>//
>malloc()
>assert
>throws
>endif
A while loop always checks whether it should exit. It will always check if the 1 is true and should continue. Meanwhile a for (;;) has no condition to check, which omits that one step.
Again, any compiler optimisation will immediately catch on to either and make them the same
Some compilers warn on a constant expression for while.
>xtoy()
kek genuinely giggled
>if __name__ == "__main__": main()
found the script kiddie
>// quick hack
>keepGoing = true
>while(keepGoing)
My university's intro to CS course teaches this and I really wish they didn't.
>using a computer program to solve anything instead of pen and paper
>Blame shows it was last modified in December 2009
>elif
>fi
>public static int foo(bar b)
>>return JNI.foo(b);
>target
>virtual
>yield
>if
>else if
>else if
/**/
>void pointer
>free
you save maybe like 4 clock cycles if you look at the assembler, it shouldnt matter unless you are aspie
And only if you disabled any optimisations in the compiler, at that. Which one to use is entirely a matter of personal preference desu
> foo
> cat | grep | awk
Why the fuck would you care about microoptimizations when not using compiler optimizations at all?
Whatever, professor
See Autism or retardism only. The user asked if there is a difference - and strictly speaking there is the possibility of there being a difference, but only if you're both autistic enough to care about like 4 clock cycles AND retarded enough to not optimise at the same time
>literally no difference
Nice
>_variableName
>let
>__epic_snake_varXD__
>{}()[]
>doSomething(function(o,p,g,a,y)....
>}else{