how to break out early of a case ?

[wp]

Why not put the code of that case into a procedure?

Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]

1. procedure DoSomething;
2. begin
3.   statement1;
4.   statement2;
5.   if SomeCondition then exit;
6.   statement3;
7.   statement4;
8. end;
9.  
10. begin
11.   case I of
12.     somevalue:
13.       DoSomething;
14.     ...
15.     <other cases>
16.   end;

[440bx]

emulate it.

Why not put the code of that case into a procedure?

Absolutely.  Those are both reasonable workarounds.     There is no shortage of ways to implement the logic.  It's just unfortunate that the simplest and cleanest solution, which is to break out of the case, simply isn't available.  Oh well...

Thank you for the suggestions, I appreciate them.

Allowing "break" in a case statement would be a nice addition to the language and, best of all, it isn't hard to implement.  May be a feature the developers might be willing to consider.

[taazz]

emulate it.

Why not put the code of that case into a procedure?

Absolutely.  Those are both reasonable workarounds.     There is no shortage of ways to implement the logic.  It's just unfortunate that the simplest and cleanest solution, which is to break out of the case, simply isn't available.  Oh well...

Thank you for the suggestions, I appreciate them.

Allowing "break" in a case statement would be a nice addition to the language and, best of all, it isn't hard to implement.  May be a feature the developers might be willing to consider.

No, the choices presented here are as easy and straight forward as a call to break. I see no reason to change break.

[440bx]

No, the choices presented here are as easy and straight forward as a call to break. I see no reason to change break.

Those choices are easy and straightforward but, they break linear flow. Those choices could be used in any loop too.  Following your logic, there is no need for "break" in a loop either.

It's about controlling logical flow.  Not having to nest into ifs or call function/procedures when a linear solution is possible.

At this point, it looks like we should probably agree to disagree.

Bottom line is simple: there is no way in Pascal to break out early of a case statement.  When that is needed, which is quite common, C provides a better, simpler, cleaner solution.

[taazz]

No, the choices presented here are as easy and straight forward as a call to break. I see no reason to change break.

Those choices are easy and straightforward but, they break linear flow. Those choices could be used in any loop too.  Following your logic, there is no need for "break" in a loop either.

true break is just a familiar construct nothing more.

It's about controlling logical flow.  Not having to nest into ifs or call function/procedures when a linear solution is possible.

there are proper flow control constructs no need to extend a hack to a flow control construct.

At this point, it looks like we should probably agree to disagree.

on all accounts I guess.

Bottom line is simple: there is no way in Pascal to break out early of a case statement.  When that is needed, which is quite common, C provides a better, simpler, cleaner solution.

There are. you simple choose to reject them.

[engkin]

To add to the list, with a sense of humor. Let us use exceptions:

Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]

1. type
2.   ECaseExit=class(Exception)
3.   end;
4. ...
5.   try case I of
6.     somevalue :
7.     begin
8.       statement ...
9.       statement...
10.  
11.       if someconditionhere then raise ECaseExit.Create('Take me out.');
12.  
13.       statement ...
14.       statement....
15.     end;
16.  
17.     <more cases here>
18.   end; { case } except On ECaseExit do; end;

I think using break inside a case would break some code that was supposed to exit the loop:

Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]

1.   while somecondition do
2.      case I of
3.        val1: if shouldLeaveLoop then
4.          Break
5.        val2: ....
6.      end;

[440bx]

I think using break inside a case would break some code that was supposed to exit the loop:

Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]

1.   while somecondition do
2.      case I of
3.        val1: if shouldLeaveLoop then
4.          Break
5.        val2: ....
6.      end;

Now, that is a reasonable objection and, your example shows that it is, at least somewhat likely, that it would.   That's unfortunate since it is a good reason not to implement break in case statements.

I got a chuckle out of using an exception to break out of a case.   Good one.

[ASBzone]

Allowing "break" in a case statement would be a nice addition to the language and, best of all, it isn't hard to implement.  May be a feature the developers might be willing to consider.

What did you think of using Repeat/Until in place of Begin/End, which would facilitate Break?

[Thaddy]

< > I still think he means the break in the case of a C case. Which I already answered...

[440bx]

What did you think of using Repeat/Until in place of Begin/End, which would facilitate Break?

I like it.  It's a nice trick to implement a scope that can be broken out of.   Sort of a begin/end pair that can be broken out of.  Can be very handy,  Of course, it needs to be commented as to its real purpose so the programmer who sees it knows why it's being done.

Used correctly, it can also be used to replace some try/finally pairs resulting in much better assembly code.

Thanks.

[mangakissa]

if shouldLeaveLoop is a condition, why not reverse the code

Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]

1. while somecondition do
2.   if shouldLeaveLoop then
3.   begin
4.      case I of
5.        val1: ....
6.        val2: ....
7.      end;
8.   end;
9.  

I'm agreed with Thaddy (not always ). 
You said you don't want to use goto, but break is doing the same.

[440bx]

I'm agreed with Thaddy (not always ). 
You said you don't want to use goto, but break is doing the same.

There is a big difference between break and a goto.  The destination of a break is preset by where it occurs.  A goto can go anywhere.  Break and goto do the same thing only for people who are better at babbling than programming.

[lucamar]

Break and goto do the same thing only for people who are better at babbling than programming.

You're wrong, you know. Break, Continue, Exit, etc. are just specialized Gotos; the fact that their destination is preselected doesn't negate this.

One could almost say that they were created to allow you to sneak a "goto" while avoiding that culpable feeling that real gotos produce 

[440bx]

One could almost say that they were created to allow you to sneak a "goto" while avoiding that culpable feeling that real gotos produce 

No.  They were created because they solve the inherent problem of the goto statement, which is that the destination is, unlike with break, continue, etc, not predetermined.

[Thaddy]

Break and goto do the same thing only for people who are better at babbling than programming.

You're wrong, you know. Break, Continue, Exit, etc. are just specialized Gotos; the fact that their destination is preselected doesn't negate this.

One could almost say that they were created to allow you to sneak a "goto" while avoiding that culpable feeling that real gotos produce 

Actually you are a bit incomplete in  your explanation: those goto's are assembler jumps generated by the compiler. As such they have little to do with an actual high level language construct.
But your answer is more correct than that babbler.