Using continue in a switch statement

会有一股神秘感。 提交于 2019-11-28 17:08:47
visitor

It's fine, the continue statement relates to the enclosing loop, and your code should be equivalent to (avoiding such jump statements):

while (something = get_something()) {
    if (something == A || something == B)
        do_something();
}

But if you expect break to exit the loop, as your comment suggest (it always tries again with another something, until it evaluates to false), you'll need a different structure.

For example:

do {
    something = get_something();
} while (!(something == A || something == B));
do_something();

Yes, it's OK - it's just like using it in an if statement. Of course, you can't use a break to break out of a loop from inside a switch.

Islam Elshahat

Yes, continue will be ignored by the switch statement and will go to the condition of the loop to be tested. I'd like to share this extract from The C Programming Language reference by Ritchie:

The continue statement is related to break, but less often used; it causes the next iteration of the enclosing for, while, or do loop to begin. In the while and do, this means that the test part is executed immediately; in the for, control passes to the increment step.

The continue statement applies only to loops, not to a switch statement. A continue inside a switch inside a loop causes the next loop iteration.

I'm not sure about that for C++.

It's syntactically correct and stylistically okay.

Good style requires every case: statement should end with one of the following:

 break;
 continue;
 return (x);
 exit (x);
 throw (x);
 //fallthrough

Additionally, following case (x): immediately with

 case (y):
 default:

is permissible - bundling several cases that have exactly the same effect.

Anything else is suspected to be a mistake, just like if(a=4){...} Of course you need enclosing loop (while, for, do...while) for continue to work. It won't loop back to case() alone. But a construct like:

while(record = getNewRecord())
{
    switch(record.type)
    {
        case RECORD_TYPE_...;
            ...
        break;
        default: //unknown type
            continue; //skip processing this record altogether.
    }
    //...more processing...
}

...is okay.

Alexander Poluektov

While technically valid, all these jumps obscure control flow -- especially the continue statement.

I would use such a trick as a last resort, not first one.

How about

while (something = get_something())
{
    switch (something)
    {
    case A:
    case B:
        do_something();
    }        
}

It's shorter and perform its stuff in a more clear way.

Switch is not considered as loop so you cannot use Continue inside a case statement in switch...

易学教程内所有资源均来自网络或用户发布的内容,如有违反法律规定的内容欢迎反馈
该文章没有解决你所遇到的问题?点击提问,说说你的问题,让更多的人一起探讨吧!