>break
Break
Colton Brooks
Adam Powell
>goto
Jaxon Diaz
>if
Easton Cruz
>Java
William Nelson
>while
Gabriel Walker
>return
Nathan Rogers
>while
Asher Peterson
>boolean ? expression1 : expression2;
Jeremiah Howard
for(;;)
Jose Taylor
>try
>catch
Andrew Anderson
>continue
Ryan Parker
>class
Aiden Carter
else if
Sebastian Collins
>object
Adam Bailey
how do you break out of a loop if you don't know when the result you need is gonna happen?
Brandon Hernandez
if err != nil {
Andrew Hall
>~class_name
Nathan Harris
return _, err
}
oops
Sebastian Phillips
>.then
Michael Miller
>finally
Carson Edwards
>case
Josiah Robinson
>int main
Isaiah Ward
Some bools and lots of ifs
Oh and ...&& continuechecker in the while loop
Ez
Oliver Jones
>public static void main
Brayden Barnes
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
Alexander Brown
>typedef
Isaiah Morales
(String args[])
Wyatt Anderson
>{
>}
Jonathan Long
How do you break an outer loop from an inner loop?
Charles Ross
>;
Logan Rodriguez
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.
James Wright
>(
Isaac Ross
>print
What the fuck it's a screen, not a printer!
Benjamin Lewis
> Labeled break statement
Why not just have a label after the outer loop
Benjamin Wilson
>void
Is it a static void into eternal nothingness?
Bentley Nguyen
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.
Anthony Reyes
underage
Wyatt Wilson
>scope resolution operator
Jayden Gonzalez
Get out gramps >:(
Landon Murphy
>#include
Sebastian Green
StringBuilder()
John Cooper
>defer
Easton Jackson
>program can exit from more than one reference
Jacob James
>while(true)
Alexander Sanders
>#pragma omp simd aligned(row) linear(row)
Lucas Barnes
>if (condition) // executes if condition is met
Jordan Green
>rand()
Evan Ramirez
>#pragma once
Noah Gonzalez
>public boolean isValid()
>if()....
>>if()....
>>>return false
>>else if()...
>>>return false;
>return true;
Luke Lewis
>else
Wyatt Harris
>///////////////////////////////////////////////
Andrew Price
>int i=0;
>for(foo f: bar)
>>bar[i++]=2*f
Evan Collins
>print(\n)
Aiden Walker
>boolean ? (boolean ? expression : expression) : (boolean ? expression : expression)
Blake Brown
Kys nigger. You've obviously never worked with embedded systems.
Jacob Peterson
Why would someone write for(;;) instead of while(1)?
Aaron Rivera
for (;;) doesn't make the condition check that while (1) does
It doesn't matter if you let your compiler at all optimise though
Kevin Taylor
explain
Jaxon Green
>template
Elijah Russell
>//
Leo Long
>malloc()
Logan Rogers
>assert
Daniel Hernandez
>throws
Robert Butler
>endif
Mason Perez
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
David Edwards
Some compilers warn on a constant expression for while.
Luis Lopez
>xtoy()
Jordan Martin
kek genuinely giggled
Mason Hill
>if __name__ == "__main__": main()
Brandon Wright
found the script kiddie
Hunter Clark
>// quick hack
Brody Foster
>keepGoing = true
>while(keepGoing)
My university's intro to CS course teaches this and I really wish they didn't.
John Morgan
>using a computer program to solve anything instead of pen and paper
Henry Ward
>Blame shows it was last modified in December 2009
Ayden Harris
>elif
Jaxson Clark
>fi
Brandon Collins
>public static int foo(bar b)
>>return JNI.foo(b);
Landon Stewart
>target
Jason Sanchez
>virtual
Colton Brooks
>yield
Luis Kelly
>if
>else if
>else if
Anthony Roberts
/**/
Eli Morris
>void pointer
Elijah Jones
>free
Eli Cruz
you save maybe like 4 clock cycles if you look at the assembler, it shouldnt matter unless you are aspie
Jonathan Hernandez
And only if you disabled any optimisations in the compiler, at that. Which one to use is entirely a matter of personal preference desu
Zachary Price
> foo
Aiden Hughes
> cat | grep | awk
Nolan Bailey
Ethan Price
William Anderson
Why the fuck would you care about microoptimizations when not using compiler optimizations at all?
Grayson Miller
Whatever, professor
Easton Morales
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
Jack Wilson
>literally no difference
Nice
Isaiah Miller
>_variableName
>let
>__epic_snake_varXD__
>{}()[]
>doSomething(function(o,p,g,a,y)....
>}else{