Yes a goto is a short jump restricted to a function most kernel stuff needs more interrupt like jumps more known as long jumps. One example can be found here. http://publications.gbdirect.co.uk/c_book/chapter9/nonlocal_jumps.html I am done with this thread we have told you it's not good if you want to use it you know better than me a 20 year programmer, Laura a hacker queen which I will not put years on because it's not polite , Sina a code terrorist who can drop a bomb on a program in one breath and who speaks better machine language than English and well there is Tyler I have not decided what to call him yet but he learns from his mistakes will you? Not only that but if you don't want to listen why the hell do you ask a question on a coding list? ken From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christopher Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 2:19 PM To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: help with c++ if test A jump is a "goto" (typically). :| On 2/9/2011 11:17 AM, Ken Perry wrote: Yes and instead of goto in kernel programming you really should use jumps. ken From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sina Bahram Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 2:11 PM To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: help with c++ if test Yes, regardless, goto is bad. But absolutely you can break out of the inner loop, but then you'll be in the top level loop, in which you can do a conditional. This is still more efficient, since it is definitionally true that you would do a check in the inner loop before your goto, and if you are doing a check in the inner loop, then that means you are doing a check M*n times, where m and n are the dimensions of the outer and inner loops, respectively. If you remove that, and simply do the check in the outer loop, then you are only doing a check m times, which is an entire order of complexity better. Goto is bad. This is the one rule where because I say so and other inane excuses from teachers is acceptable. Goto is just bad. There is no reason, none, what-so-ever, that you need one. Now, if we get into kernel programming where assembler is being linked in, etc, etc, then we can talk . but in something as straight forward and earth shatteringly simple as the logic for an adventure game? Goto is absolutely in no way necessary under any possibly conceivable permutations. Take care, Sina From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Littlefield, Tyler Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 2:05 PM To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: help with c++ if test Sina: Break is awesome when you have one single loop, but you can't break out of two loops, can you? It was just the first thing that came to mind because I've seen it used (and used it) like that. On 2/9/2011 11:50 AM, Sina Bahram wrote: tyler, this is a horrible example of goto, my friend. That's what break is for. Take care, Sina From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Littlefield, Tyler Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 1:17 PM To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: help with c++ if test I really really highly recommend you avoid goto. This isn't basic, and they're not very useful except for in some odd cases, far and few between. Such as jumping out of two nested loops like so: int i, j; for (i = 0; i < 100; i++) { for (j = 0; j < 100; j++) { if (i+j == 100) goto botttom; } } bottom: //do something here if you want to compare strings, do something like this: if (input == "north") { GoNorth(); } else if (input == "south") ... else ... On 2/9/2011 10:52 AM, Kristoffer Gustafsson wrote: Hi. I'm writing if tests in c++ with the goto command. I want to do text games and I'm using these commands for that. But it doesn't work, so I must do something wrong. Can you give me an example how this is done with a string please? /Kristoffer -- Thanks, Ty -- Thanks, Ty