8 statement-level control structure

ICS 313 - Fundamentals of Programming Languages 1
8. Statement-Level Control Structure
8.1 Introduction
Levels of Control Flow
Within expressions
Among program units
Among program statements
Evolution
FORTRAN I control statements were based directly on IBM 704 hardware
Much research and argument in the1960s about the issue
One important result: It was proven that all flowcharts can be coded with
only two-way selection and pretest logical loops
A control structure is a control statement and the statements whose
execution it controls
Overall Design Question
What control statements should a language have, beyond selection and
pretest logical loops?

8.2 Compound statements
Introduced by ALGOL 60
A block is a compound statement that can define a
new scope (with local variables)
8.3 Selection Statements
Design Issues
What is the form and type of the control expression?
What is the selectable segment form (single statement, statement
sequence, compound statement)?
How should the meaning of nested selectors be specified?
Single-Way Examples
FORTRAN IF: IF (boolean_expr) statement
Problem: can select only a single statement; to select more, a GOTO must
be used, as in the following example
IF (.NOT. condition) GOTO 20
...
...
20 CONTINUE
Negative logic is bad for readability
This problem was solved in FORTRAN 77
Most later languages allow compounds for the selectable segment of their
single-way selectors

8.3 Selection Statements (continued)
Two-way Selector Examples
ALGOL 60 if:
if (boolean_expr)
then statement (the then clause)
else statement (the else clause)
The statements could be single or compound
Nested Selectors
e.g. (Java)
if ...
if ...
...
else ...
Which if gets the else?
Java's static semantics rule: else goes with the nearest if
ALGOL 60's solution - disallow direct nesting
if ... then if ... then
begin begin
if ... if ... then ...
then ... end
else ... else ...
end
FORTRAN 90 and Ada solution - closing special words
e.g. (Ada)
... ...
else end if
... else
end if ...
end if end if
Advantage: flexibility and readability

Multiple Selection Constructs
Design Issues
What is the form and type of the control expression?
What segments are selectable (single, compound, sequences)?
Is the entire construct encapsulated?
Is execution flow through the structure restricted to include just a
single selectable segment?
What is done about unrepresented expression values?
Early Multiple Selectors
FORTRAN arithmetic IF (a three-way selector) IF (arithmetic
expression) N1, N2, N3
Bad aspects
Not encapsulated (selectable segments could be anywhere)
Segments require GOTOs
FORTRAN computed GOTO and assigned GOTO
Modern Multiple Selectors
Pascal case (from Hoare's contribution to ALGOL W)
case expression of
constant_list_1 : statement_1;
...
constant_list_n : statement_n
end
Design choices
Expression is any ordinal type (int, boolean, char, enum)
Segments can be single or compound
Construct is encapsulated
Only one segment can be executed per execution of the construct
In Wirth's Pascal, result of an unrepresented control expression value is undefined
(In 1984 ISO Standard, it is a runtime error)
Many dialects now have otherwise or else clause

The C, C++, and Java switch
switch (expression) {
constant_expression_1 : statement_1;
...
constant_expression_n : statement_n;
[default: statement_n+1]
}
Design Choices: (for switch)
Control expression can be only an integer type
Selectable segments can be statement sequences, blocks, or compound
statements
Construct is encapsulated
Any number of segments can be executed in one execution of the construct (there is
no implicit branch at the end of selectable segments) (a trade-off between reliability
and flexibility -- convenience)
To avoid it, the programmer must supply a break statement for each segment
default clause is for unrepresented values (if there is no default, the whole
statement does nothing)
Ada's case is similar to Pascal's case, except:
Constant lists can include:
Subranges e.g., 10..15
Boolean OR operators
e.g., 1..5 | 7 | 15..20
Lists of constants must be exhaustive
Often accomplished with others clause
This makes it more reliable
Multiple Selectors can appear as direct extensions to two-way selectors, using
else-if clauses (ALGOL 68, FORTRAN 90, Ada)
Ada:
if ...
then ...
elsif ...
then ...
elsif ...
then ...
else ...
end if
Far more readable than deeply nested if's
Allows a Boolean gate on every selectable group

8.4 Iterative Statements
The repeated execution of a statement or compound statement is
accomplished either by iteration or recursion; here we look at
iteration, because recursion is unit-level control
General design Issues for iteration control statements
How is iteration controlled?
Where is the control mechanism in the loop?
Counter-Controlled Loops
Design Issues
What are the type and scope of the loop var?
What is the value of the loop var at loop termination?
Should it be legal for the loop var or loop parameters to be changed in
the loop body, and if so, does the change affect loop control?
Should the loop parameters be evaluated only once, or once for every
iteration?
8.4 Iterative Statements (continued)
FORTRAN 90
Syntax: DO label var = start, finish [, stepsize]
Stepsize can be any value but zero
Parameters can be expressions
Design choices:
Loop var must be INTEGER
Loop var always has its last value
The loop var cannot be changed in the loop, but the parameters can;
because they are evaluated only once, it does not affect loop control
Loop parameters are evaluated only once
FORTRAN 90’s Other DO
Syntax
[name:] DO variable = initial, terminal [, stepsize]
…
END DO [name]
Loop var must be an INTEGER

ALGOL 60
Syntax: for var := <list_of_stuff> do statement,
where <list_of_stuff> can have
list of expressions
expression step expression until expression
expression while boolean_expression
for index := 1 step 2 until 50,
60, 70, 80,
index + 1 until 100 do
(index = 1, 3, 5, 7, ..., 49, 60, 70, 80, 81, 82,
...,100)
ALGOL 60 Design choices
Control expression can be int or real; its scope is whatever it is
declared to be
Control var has its last assigned value after loop termination
The loop var cannot be changed in the loop, but the parameters can,
and when they are, it affects loop control
Parameters are evaluated with every iteration, making it very complex
and difficult to read
Pascal
Syntax:
for variable := initial (to | downto) final do statement
Design Choices
Loop var must be an ordinal type of usual scope
After normal termination, loop var is undefined
The loop var cannot be changed in the loop; the loop parameters can be changed, but they are
evaluated just once, so it does not affect loop control
Ada
Syntax:
for var in [reverse] discrete_range loop
...
end loop
Design choices
Type of the loop var is that of the discrete range; its scope is the loop body (it is implicitly
declared)
The loop var does not exist outside the loop
The loop var cannot be changed in the loop, but the discrete range can; it does not affect
loop control
The discrete range is evaluated just once

C
Syntax
for ([expr_1] ; [expr_2] ; [expr_3]) statement
The expressions can be whole statements, or even statement
sequences, with the statements separated by commas
The value of a multiple-statement expression is the value of the last
statement in the expression e.g.,
for (i = 0, j = 10; j == i; i++) …
If the second expression is absent, it is an infinite loop
Design Choices:
There is no explicit loop var
Irrelevant
Everything can be changed in the loop
The first expression is evaluated once, but the other two are evaluated with each iteration
This loop statement is the most flexible
C++
Differs from C in two ways:
The control expression can also be Boolean
The initial expression can include variable definitions (scope is from the
definition to the end of the loop body)
Java
Differs from C++ in that the control expression must be
Boolean

Logically-Controlled Loops
Design Issues
Pretest or postest?
Should this be a special case of the counting loop statement (or a separate
statement)?
Language Examples
Pascal has separate pretest and posttest logical loop statements (while-do and
repeat-until)
C and C++ also have both, but the control expression for the posttest version is
treated just like in the pretest case (while - do and do - while)
Java is like C, except the control expression must be Boolean (and the body can
only be entered at the beginning -- Java has no goto)
Ada has a pretest version, but no posttest
FORTRAN 77 and 90 have neither
Perl has two pretest logical loops, while and until, but no posttest logical loop
User-Located Loop Control Mechanisms
Design issues:
Should the conditional be part of the exit?
Should the mechanism be allowed in an already controlled loop?
Should control be transferable out of more than one loop?
Examples
Ada - conditional or unconditional; for any loop; any number of levels
for ... loop LOOP1:
... while ... loop
exit when ... ...
... LOOP2:
end loop for ... loop
...
exit LOOP1 when ..
...
end loop LOOP2;
...
end loop LOOP1;

C , C++, and Java - break
Unconditional; for any loop or switch; one level only (except Java’s can have a
label)
There is also has a continue statement for loops; it skips the remainder of this
iteration, but does not exit the loop
FORTRAN 90 - EXIT
Unconditional; for any loop, any number of levels
FORTRAN 90 also has CYCLE, which has the same semantics as C's continue
Iteration Based on Data Structures
Concept: use order and number of elements of some data
structure to control iteration
Control mechanism is a call to a function that returns the next
element in some chosen order, if there is one; else exit loop
C's for can be used to build a user-defined iterator
e.g. for (p=hdr; p; p=next(p)) { ... }
Perl has a built-in iterator for arrays and hashes
e.g., foreach $name (@names) { print $name }
8.5 Unconditional Branching
Problem: readability
Some languages do not have them: e.g., Java
Loop exit statements are restricted and somewhat
camouflaged goto’s
Label forms
Unsigned int constants: Pascal (with colon)
FORTRAN (no colon)
Identifiers with colons: ALGOL 60, C
Identifiers in << ... >>: Ada
Variables as labels: PL/I
Can be assigned values and passed as parameters
Highly flexible, but make programs impossible to read and difficult to implement

8.6 Guarded Commands
Dijkstra, 1975
Purpose: to support a new programming methodology (verification
during program development)
Selection: if <boolean> -> <statement>
[] <boolean> -> <statement>
...
fi
Semantics: when this construct is reached,
Evaluate all boolean expressions
If more than one are true, choose one nondeterministically
If none are true, it is a runtime error
Idea: if the order of evaluation is not important, the program should not
specify one
See book examples (pp. 339, 340)
8.6 Guarded Commands (continued)
Loops do <boolean> -> <statement>
...
od
Semantics: For each iteration
Evaluate all boolean expressions
If more than one are true, choose one nondeterministically; then start loop again
If none are true, exit loop
--> See book example (p. 340)
Connection between control statements and program verification is intimate
Verification is impossible with gotos
Verification is possible with only selection and logical pretest loops
Verification is relatively simple with only guarded commands
Chapter Conclusion: Choice of control statements beyond selection and logical
pretest loops is a trade-off between language size and writability

8 statement-level control structure

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to 8 statement-level control structure

More from jigeno

Recently uploaded

8 statement-level control structure