>
> "cj" <cj@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:ex3Rt36RGHA.1572@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> When I'm inside a do while loop sometimes it's necessary to jump out
>> of the loop using exit do.  I'm also used to being able to jump back
>> and begin the loop again.  Not sure which language my memories are of
>> but I think I just said loop somewhere inside the loop and it
>> immediately jumped back to the start of the loop and began again.  I
>> can't seem to do that in .net.  I this functionality available?
>
> I think in VB.Net 2005, you have the Continue statement, but I'm not
> sure. In C#, it's continue (if my memory serves correctly).
>
> HTH,
> Mythran
>

> "cj" <cj@nospam.nospam> schrieb:
>> Unfortunately I'm using VB.Net 2003 right now and continue doesn't
>> appear to do that in 2003.  I believe continue does have that
>> functionality in some language.
>
> You can still mimick the behavior of 'continue' using a named label and
> 'GoTo'...
>

"cj" <cj@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23H2GZK7RGHA.5924@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Whowa!  Your sure to get blasted for that idea.  I hope you aren't using
> your real name.  :)  I just might do that though.
>
>
> Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote:
>> "cj" <cj@nospam.nospam> schrieb:
>>> Unfortunately I'm using VB.Net 2003 right now and continue doesn't
>>> appear to do that in 2003.  I believe continue does have that
>>> functionality in some language.
>>
>> You can still mimick the behavior of 'continue' using a named label and
>> 'GoTo'...
>>

>
> "cj" <cj@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:%23H2GZK7RGHA.5924@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Whowa!  Your sure to get blasted for that idea.  I hope you aren't
>> using your real name.  :)  I just might do that though.
>>
>>
>> Herfried K. Wagner [MVP] wrote:
>>> "cj" <cj@nospam.nospam> schrieb:
>>>> Unfortunately I'm using VB.Net 2003 right now and continue doesn't
>>>> appear to do that in 2003.  I believe continue does have that
>>>> functionality in some language.
>>>
>>> You can still mimick the behavior of 'continue' using a named label
>>> and 'GoTo'...
>>>
>
> lol Herfried is a very popular poster here :)  As well as an MVP...he'll
> be blasted for being both of those for sure <ducks>
>
> Naw, Herfried is a good poster and if he gets blasted...
>
> Mythran

"Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hirf-spam-me-here@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:%23ncLnG7RGHA.4956@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "cj" <cj@nospam.nospam> schrieb:
> > Unfortunately I'm using VB.Net 2003 right now and continue doesn't
appear
> > to do that in 2003.  I believe continue does have that functionality in
> > some language.
>
> You can still mimick the behavior of 'continue' using a named label and
> 'GoTo'...
>
> --
>  M S   Herfried K. Wagner
> M V P  <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
>  V B   <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>
>
>

> VB 6 doesn't have it either.  What you see in VB 6 program is:
>
> do
>    if somecondition then
>        ...
>        ...
>    end if
> loop
>
> In VB 2005 this would be
>
> do
>    if not somecondition then continue
>    ...
>    ...
> loop
>
> It's awkward but it works.  Also, it's interesting to note that the VB 2005
> continue doesn't actually jump back to the start of the loop.  It actually
> jumps to the end of the loop and lets the loop control jump back.  Watch it
> in the debugger.
>
> Mike Ober.
>
>
> "Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]" <hirf-spam-me-here@gmx.at> wrote in message
> news:%23ncLnG7RGHA.4956@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> "cj" <cj@nospam.nospam> schrieb:
>>> Unfortunately I'm using VB.Net 2003 right now and continue doesn't
> appear
>>> to do that in 2003.  I believe continue does have that functionality in
>>> some language.
>> You can still mimick the behavior of 'continue' using a named label and
>> 'GoTo'...
>>
>> --
>>  M S   Herfried K. Wagner
>> M V P  <URL:http://dotnet.mvps.org/>
>>  V B   <URL:http://classicvb.org/petition/>
>>
>>
>
>
>

> cj <cj@nospam.nospam> wrote in
> news:#zyuFUDSGHA.2224@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl:
>
>> Basically I'm starting the loop and if things go correctly I execute
>> all code in it.  But at say 6 places in the loop I have to check how
>> things are going.  If they are not going well I want to forget about
>> processing the remainder of work in the loop and try the next
>> iteration.
>
> You could always try structured programming:
>
>
>   Do While True
>     carryOn = True
>  
>     if carryOn Then
>       DoSomeProcessing()
>       carryOn = Not ConditionMet()
>
>     end if
>
>     if carryOn Then
>       DoSomeMoreProcessing()
>       If Not AnotherCondition() Then
>         carryOn = False
>       End If
>    
>     end if
>
>     if carryOn Then
>       DoLastBitOfWork
>       If FinalCondition > criterionDecided Then
>         Exit Do
>       End If
>     End If
>
>   Loop
>
>  
>
> Hope that helps
>
>
> Tim F
>
>

> cj <cj@nospam.nospam> wrote in news:etzxgIHSGHA.5808@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl:
>
>>  Strangely next to
>> the non existent loop/continue statement goto would seem to create the
>> most readable and compact code.
>
> Yebbut, Nobbut, Yebbut, Nobbut Yeah, you see... it's all about how far the
> Goto GetOutOfHereNow is from the :GetOutOfHereNow. In many implementations
> they end up a long way away, and it's the code-maintainer that comes along
> later and doesn't spot it.
>
> For my money, structured programming is all about putting code into little
> self-contained boxes, and any path that suddenly arrives at another point
> with several different possibilities for variables that have been
> initialised or not, files that have been opened or closed or not, etc etc
> is asking for trouble. YMMV of course.
>
> All the best
>
>
> Tim F
>

> cj wrote:
>> When I'm inside a do while loop sometimes it's necessary to jump out
>> of the loop using exit do.  I'm also used to being able to jump back
>> and begin the loop again.  Not sure which language my memories are of
>> but I think I just said loop somewhere inside the loop and it
>> immediately jumped back to the start of the loop and began again.  I
>> can't seem to do that in .net.  I this functionality available?
>
> The meaning of "continue" is to start the *next* iteration immediately and
> bypass any further code in the loop body. If you want to continue the
> current operation then you'd either have an inner loop or use a goto. If you
> want to completely restart the loop then you'd be best enclosing it in an
> outer loop. You mustn't use the goto idea for that one. Jumping out of the
> loop to before the loop - that should get you those frowns. ;o)
>
>
>

"cj" <cj@nospam.nospam> schreef in bericht
news:eiDGYQ9RGHA.1688@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>I understand the functionality of continue.  I also understand it doesn't
>work in VB.Net 2003, right?  It does in 2005, right?
>
> I understand why goto is not generally a good thing but just because a
> command has been frequently misused in the past doesn't make it bad.  I
> admire Herfried for suggesting goto.  It seems like a perfect use. Still
> I'm having a hard time using it because other say it's wrong. It's a real
> conundrum.  There has to be a way that socially acceptable and personally
> feels right.
>
> An outer loop is what I have started with because goto has been out of my
> vocabulary since 87.  Still I just don't like seeing one loop inserted
> inside another just for this functionality.  It looks funny and just seems
> wrong.  I'll come up with a better way.  Something in the nature
> subroutines and flags etc.  I'll get something that feels better when I
> get back to work tomorrow.
>
>
> dotNuttah wrote:
>> cj wrote:
>>> When I'm inside a do while loop sometimes it's necessary to jump out
>>> of the loop using exit do.  I'm also used to being able to jump back
>>> and begin the loop again.  Not sure which language my memories are of
>>> but I think I just said loop somewhere inside the loop and it
>>> immediately jumped back to the start of the loop and began again.  I
>>> can't seem to do that in .net.  I this functionality available?
>>
>> The meaning of "continue" is to start the *next* iteration immediately
>> and
>> bypass any further code in the loop body. If you want to continue the
>> current operation then you'd either have an inner loop or use a goto. If
>> you
>> want to completely restart the loop then you'd be best enclosing it in an
>> outer loop. You mustn't use the goto idea for that one. Jumping out of
>> the
>> loop to before the loop - that should get you those frowns. ;o)
>>
>>

> cj,
>
> I don't agree with you and there is in my opinion enough written in this
> newsgroup about that.
>
> Can't you not use a Select Case. Probably makes that your program again much
> readable then.
>
> Cor
>
> "cj" <cj@nospam.nospam> schreef in bericht
> news:eiDGYQ9RGHA.1688@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> I understand the functionality of continue.  I also understand it doesn't
>> work in VB.Net 2003, right?  It does in 2005, right?
>>
>> I understand why goto is not generally a good thing but just because a
>> command has been frequently misused in the past doesn't make it bad.  I
>> admire Herfried for suggesting goto.  It seems like a perfect use. Still
>> I'm having a hard time using it because other say it's wrong. It's a real
>> conundrum.  There has to be a way that socially acceptable and personally
>> feels right.
>>
>> An outer loop is what I have started with because goto has been out of my
>> vocabulary since 87.  Still I just don't like seeing one loop inserted
>> inside another just for this functionality.  It looks funny and just seems
>> wrong.  I'll come up with a better way.  Something in the nature
>> subroutines and flags etc.  I'll get something that feels better when I
>> get back to work tomorrow.
>>
>>
>> dotNuttah wrote:
>>> cj wrote:
>>>> When I'm inside a do while loop sometimes it's necessary to jump out
>>>> of the loop using exit do.  I'm also used to being able to jump back
>>>> and begin the loop again.  Not sure which language my memories are of
>>>> but I think I just said loop somewhere inside the loop and it
>>>> immediately jumped back to the start of the loop and began again.  I
>>>> can't seem to do that in .net.  I this functionality available?
>>> The meaning of "continue" is to start the *next* iteration immediately
>>> and
>>> bypass any further code in the loop body. If you want to continue the
>>> current operation then you'd either have an inner loop or use a goto. If
>>> you
>>> want to completely restart the loop then you'd be best enclosing it in an
>>> outer loop. You mustn't use the goto idea for that one. Jumping out of
>>> the
>>> loop to before the loop - that should get you those frowns. ;o)
>>>
>>>
>

>I'll get something that feels better when I get back to work tomorrow.

:-))

> dotNuttah wrote:
>> cj wrote:
>>> When I'm inside a do while loop sometimes it's necessary to jump out
>>> of the loop using exit do.  I'm also used to being able to jump back
>>> and begin the loop again.  Not sure which language my memories are
>>> of but I think I just said loop somewhere inside the loop and it
>>> immediately jumped back to the start of the loop and began again.  I
>>> can't seem to do that in .net.  I this functionality available?
>>
>> The meaning of "continue" is to start the *next* iteration
>> immediately and bypass any further code in the loop body. If you
>> want to continue the current operation then you'd either have an
>> inner loop or use a goto. If you want to completely restart the loop
>> then you'd be best enclosing it in an outer loop. You mustn't use
>> the goto idea for that one. Jumping out of the loop to before the
>> loop - that should get you those frowns. ;o)

> cj wrote:
>> I understand the functionality of continue.  I also understand it
>> doesn't work in VB.Net 2003, right?  It does in 2005, right?
>
> I don't know about 2005. ;-)
>
>> I understand why goto is not generally a good thing but just because a
>> command has been frequently misused in the past doesn't make it bad.
>> I admire Herfried for suggesting goto.  It seems like a perfect use.
>
> I've never thought goto was bad. I think that bad use of it is bad. :-D
>
>> Still I'm having a hard time using it because other say it's wrong.
>> It's a real conundrum.  There has to be a way that socially acceptable
>> and personally feels right.
>
> You're the only one that can change your personal perspective on it.
> Socially it really depends on who's opinion you're giving value to. I wonder
> what would happen if you change your personal perspective to let you use
> goto when the situation warrants it, and give it more priority than "social"
> opinion. :-))
>
>> An outer loop is what I have started with because goto has been out of
>> my vocabulary since 87.  Still I just don't like seeing one loop
>> inserted inside another just for this functionality.  It looks funny
>> and just seems wrong.
>
> I often use that method but yep, it looks clumsy, clumsy and makes the code
> cry out for some decent syntax for this structure. I can't remember where it
> was but one language I came across had "break" (or exit loop) and "continue"
> with an index. The index was the level of the loop that the break or
> continue was applied to. Very handy.
>
> To make the goto easy to use for a reader you have to make it stand out in
> the code, else the reader might be hunting all over for it and that can look
> clumsy too. Do you have the label in column one or indent it (and hence bury
> it, to a degree) in the code which it labels? :-/ A choice of name that says
> where to go/look, like "goto bottom_of_loop" helps.
>
>> I'll come up with a better way.  Something in
>> the nature subroutines and flags etc.
>
> Aye, it sounds as if the loop body contains enough that a subroutine would
> be appropriate anyway, perhaps.
>
>> I'll get something that feels better when I get back to work tomorrow.
>
> :-))
>
>> dotNuttah wrote:
>>> cj wrote:
>>>> When I'm inside a do while loop sometimes it's necessary to jump out
>>>> of the loop using exit do.  I'm also used to being able to jump back
>>>> and begin the loop again.  Not sure which language my memories are
>>>> of but I think I just said loop somewhere inside the loop and it
>>>> immediately jumped back to the start of the loop and began again.  I
>>>> can't seem to do that in .net.  I this functionality available?
>>> The meaning of "continue" is to start the *next* iteration
>>> immediately and bypass any further code in the loop body. If you
>>> want to continue the current operation then you'd either have an
>>> inner loop or use a goto. If you want to completely restart the loop
>>> then you'd be best enclosing it in an outer loop. You mustn't use
>>> the goto idea for that one. Jumping out of the loop to before the
>>> loop - that should get you those frowns. ;o)
>
>

> Thanks for all the support.  I posted this to Mythran also but I wanted
> to make sure you saw it as well.
>
> In reviewing some of this just now I see one thing that would need to be
> considered in choosing goto vs nested loops.  I'm not sure but I suspect
> the functionality of the not in VB.net 2003 loop/continue statement
> would work more like the nested loops alternative than the goto
> alternative.  In a nested loop situation the exit sub would exit the
> inner loop and therefore you'd re-enter the loop with any variables
> declared inside the loop being refreshed, for lack of a better word.  I
> haven't tried but I get the impression from the help that goto can't be
> used to jump outside a loop (to the line above it) so it could be
> restarted, hence goto could only be used to go to the first line inside
> the loop.  variables inside the loop would not be refreshed they would
> be as they existed before the goto was executed.  This could be good or
> it could be bad.  Just has to be checked into and considered.
>
>
> dotNuttah wrote:
>> cj wrote:
>>> I understand the functionality of continue.  I also understand it
>>> doesn't work in VB.Net 2003, right?  It does in 2005, right?
>>
>> I don't know about 2005. ;-)
>>
>>> I understand why goto is not generally a good thing but just because a
>>> command has been frequently misused in the past doesn't make it bad.
>>> I admire Herfried for suggesting goto.  It seems like a perfect use.
>>
>> I've never thought goto was bad. I think that bad use of it is bad. :-D
>>
>>> Still I'm having a hard time using it because other say it's wrong.
>>> It's a real conundrum.  There has to be a way that socially acceptable
>>> and personally feels right.
>>
>> You're the only one that can change your personal perspective on it.
>> Socially it really depends on who's opinion you're giving value to. I
>> wonder
>> what would happen if you change your personal perspective to let you use
>> goto when the situation warrants it, and give it more priority than
>> "social"
>> opinion. :-))
>>
>>> An outer loop is what I have started with because goto has been out of
>>> my vocabulary since 87.  Still I just don't like seeing one loop
>>> inserted inside another just for this functionality.  It looks funny
>>> and just seems wrong.
>>
>> I often use that method but yep, it looks clumsy, clumsy and makes the
>> code
>> cry out for some decent syntax for this structure. I can't remember
>> where it
>> was but one language I came across had "break" (or exit loop) and
>> "continue"
>> with an index. The index was the level of the loop that the break or
>> continue was applied to. Very handy.
>>
>> To make the goto easy to use for a reader you have to make it stand
>> out in
>> the code, else the reader might be hunting all over for it and that
>> can look
>> clumsy too. Do you have the label in column one or indent it (and
>> hence bury
>> it, to a degree) in the code which it labels? :-/ A choice of name
>> that says
>> where to go/look, like "goto bottom_of_loop" helps.
>>
>>> I'll come up with a better way.  Something in
>>> the nature subroutines and flags etc.
>>
>> Aye, it sounds as if the loop body contains enough that a subroutine
>> would
>> be appropriate anyway, perhaps.
>>
>>> I'll get something that feels better when I get back to work tomorrow.
>>
>> :-))
>>
>>> dotNuttah wrote:
>>>> cj wrote:
>>>>> When I'm inside a do while loop sometimes it's necessary to jump out
>>>>> of the loop using exit do.  I'm also used to being able to jump back
>>>>> and begin the loop again.  Not sure which language my memories are
>>>>> of but I think I just said loop somewhere inside the loop and it
>>>>> immediately jumped back to the start of the loop and began again.  I
>>>>> can't seem to do that in .net.  I this functionality available?
>>>> The meaning of "continue" is to start the *next* iteration
>>>> immediately and bypass any further code in the loop body. If you
>>>> want to continue the current operation then you'd either have an
>>>> inner loop or use a goto. If you want to completely restart the loop
>>>> then you'd be best enclosing it in an outer loop. You mustn't use
>>>> the goto idea for that one. Jumping out of the loop to before the
>>>> loop - that should get you those frowns. ;o)
>>
>>

"cj" <cj@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23PqmYTHSGHA.4600@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for all the support.  I posted this to Mythran also but I wanted to
> make sure you saw it as well.
>
> In reviewing some of this just now I see one thing that would need to be
> considered in choosing goto vs nested loops.  I'm not sure but I suspect
> the functionality of the not in VB.net 2003 loop/continue statement would
> work more like the nested loops alternative than the goto alternative.  In
> a nested loop situation the exit sub would exit the inner loop and
> therefore you'd re-enter the loop with any variables declared inside the
> loop being refreshed, for lack of a better word.  I haven't tried but I
> get the impression from the help that goto can't be used to jump outside a
> loop (to the line above it) so it could be restarted, hence goto could
> only be used to go to the first line inside the loop.  variables inside
> the loop would not be refreshed they would be as they existed before the
> goto was executed.  This could be good or it could be bad.  Just has to be
> checked into and considered.
>
>

>
> "cj" <cj@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:%23PqmYTHSGHA.4600@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks for all the support.  I posted this to Mythran also but I
>> wanted to make sure you saw it as well.
>>
>> In reviewing some of this just now I see one thing that would need to
>> be considered in choosing goto vs nested loops.  I'm not sure but I
>> suspect the functionality of the not in VB.net 2003 loop/continue
>> statement would work more like the nested loops alternative than the
>> goto alternative.  In a nested loop situation the exit sub would exit
>> the inner loop and therefore you'd re-enter the loop with any
>> variables declared inside the loop being refreshed, for lack of a
>> better word.  I haven't tried but I get the impression from the help
>> that goto can't be used to jump outside a loop (to the line above it)
>> so it could be restarted, hence goto could only be used to go to the
>> first line inside the loop.  variables inside the loop would not be
>> refreshed they would be as they existed before the goto was executed. 
>> This could be good or it could be bad.  Just has to be checked into
>> and considered.
>>
>>
>
> Depends how you write it...
>
> Your explanation is correct if written this way:
>
> [begin loop]
> [:MyLabel]
> [do stuff]
> [goto MyLabel]
> [end loop]
>
> You explanation is in-correct if written this way:
>
> [begin loop]
> [goto MyLabel]
> [do stuff]
> [:MyLabel]
> [end loop]
>
> So placing the label right before the loop re-starts will make it
> iterate/increment properly :)
>
> Mythran
>

>> An outer loop is what I have started with because goto has been out of
>> my vocabulary since 87.
>
> Never do batch files eh?  Like you said, it's not a bad command, just a
> misused command.  And if you want the functionality of "Continue"
> without using the IF's, then Goto is the perfect command for what you
> are trying to accomplish.
>
> Mythran
>

> Gee, I'm getting lots of support on this topic.  Sounds like something
> that needs discussing.  I've done lots of batch files and you sure do
> have to get, shall we say creative, to branch and make decisions.
>
> Look familiar:
>
> @echo off
> if %1. == full. goto full
> if %1. == FULL. goto full
> goto mod
> :full
>
> In reviewing some of this just now I see one thing that would need to be
> considered in choosing goto vs nested loops.  I'm not sure but I suspect
> the functionality of the not in VB.net 2003 loop/continue statement
> would work more like the nested loops alternative than the goto
> alternative.  In a nested loop situation the exit sub would exit the
> inner loop and therefore you'd re-enter the loop with any variables
> declared inside the loop being refreshed, for lack of a better word.  I
> haven't tried but I get the impression from the help that goto can't be
> used to jump outside a loop (to the line above it) so it could be
> restarted, hence goto could only be used to go to the first line inside
> the loop.  variables inside the loop would not be refreshed they would
> be as they existed before the goto was executed.  This could be good or
> it could be bad.  Just has to be checked into and considered.
>
>
> Mythran wrote:
>>> An outer loop is what I have started with because goto has been out
>>> of my vocabulary since 87.
>>
>> Never do batch files eh?  Like you said, it's not a bad command, just
>> a misused command.  And if you want the functionality of "Continue"
>> without using the IF's, then Goto is the perfect command for what you
>> are trying to accomplish.
>>
>> Mythran
>>

> cj wrote:
>> When I'm inside a do while loop sometimes it's necessary to jump out
>> of the loop using exit do.  I'm also used to being able to jump back
>> and begin the loop again.  Not sure which language my memories are of
>> but I think I just said loop somewhere inside the loop and it
>> immediately jumped back to the start of the loop and began again.  I
>> can't seem to do that in .net.  I this functionality available?
>
> Did you use Clipper(xBase) by any chance? There a loop contruction there
> like you describe it. I'm missing it too in VB. When porting some
> routines over from xBase++ I've run into this problem and had to rethink
> the logic.. too bad :(
>
>

"cj" <cj@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:ex3Rt36RGHA.1572@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> When I'm inside a do while loop sometimes it's necessary to jump out of
> the loop using exit do.  I'm also used to being able to jump back and
> begin the loop again.  Not sure which language my memories are of but I
> think I just said loop somewhere inside the loop and it immediately jumped
> back to the start of the loop and began again.  I can't seem to do that in
> .net.  I this functionality available?

> How about making the loop in its own procedure that can take the appropriate
> arguments you'll need to use to determine if the loop "is going well and
> should continue"?
>
> You can still exit from the loop (or from the sub if the loop is in one) if
> you need to and you'd be able to re-call the loop/procedure and pass it what
> it needs to begin again.
>
> "cj" <cj@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:ex3Rt36RGHA.1572@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> When I'm inside a do while loop sometimes it's necessary to jump out of
>> the loop using exit do.  I'm also used to being able to jump back and
>> begin the loop again.  Not sure which language my memories are of but I
>> think I just said loop somewhere inside the loop and it immediately jumped
>> back to the start of the loop and began again.  I can't seem to do that in
>> .net.  I this functionality available?
>
>

> cj,
>
> You can do it without a continue, a goto or whatever. I have once made a
> sample for that when Marina told I could not. It is unreadable, however.
> Therefore I do not show it here.
>
> It was almost the same as yours, although she had made an impossible
> chalenge as sample.
>
> Cor
>
>

> I thought about that this AM but after all the thought I have a double
> do loop.
>
> do
>   do
>     .
>     if something exit do
>     .
>     .
>     .
>     if something exit do
>     .
>     if something exit do
>     .
>   while innerLoop
> while continue
>
> Not beautiful but it was time to make a decision and move on.  Couldn't
> bring myself to use goto.
>
>
>
> Scott M. wrote:
>> How about making the loop in its own procedure that can take the
>> appropriate arguments you'll need to use to determine if the loop "is
>> going well and should continue"?
>>
>> You can still exit from the loop (or from the sub if the loop is in
>> one) if you need to and you'd be able to re-call the loop/procedure
>> and pass it what it needs to begin again.
>>
>> "cj" <cj@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
>> news:ex3Rt36RGHA.1572@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>> When I'm inside a do while loop sometimes it's necessary to jump out
>>> of the loop using exit do.  I'm also used to being able to jump back
>>> and begin the loop again.  Not sure which language my memories are of
>>> but I think I just said loop somewhere inside the loop and it
>>> immediately jumped back to the start of the loop and began again.  I
>>> can't seem to do that in .net.  I this functionality available?
>>
>>

> I think you may have misunderstood the suggestion for using goto.  Make
> the goto go to the end of the loop, not the beginning, and you get
> exactly the functionality of a continue statement, no messy inner loop.
>
> Ex:
>  do
>      .
>      if something goto LoopContinue
>      .
>      .
>      .
>      if something goto LoopContinue
>      .
>      if something goto LoopContinue
>      .
>
>      LoopContinue:
>  while continue
>
>
> cj wrote:
>> I thought about that this AM but after all the thought I have a double
>> do loop.
>>
>> do
>>   do
>>     .
>>     if something exit do
>>     .
>>     .
>>     .
>>     if something exit do
>>     .
>>     if something exit do
>>     .
>>   while innerLoop
>> while continue
>>
>> Not beautiful but it was time to make a decision and move on. 
>> Couldn't bring myself to use goto.
>>
>>
>>
>> Scott M. wrote:
>>> How about making the loop in its own procedure that can take the
>>> appropriate arguments you'll need to use to determine if the loop "is
>>> going well and should continue"?
>>>
>>> You can still exit from the loop (or from the sub if the loop is in
>>> one) if you need to and you'd be able to re-call the loop/procedure
>>> and pass it what it needs to begin again.
>>>
>>> "cj" <cj@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
>>> news:ex3Rt36RGHA.1572@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>> When I'm inside a do while loop sometimes it's necessary to jump out
>>>> of the loop using exit do.  I'm also used to being able to jump back
>>>> and begin the loop again.  Not sure which language my memories are
>>>> of but I think I just said loop somewhere inside the loop and it
>>>> immediately jumped back to the start of the loop and began again.  I
>>>> can't seem to do that in .net.  I this functionality available?
>>>
>>>