hashing external names & other goodies.

[Ron Natalie <ron>]

> |And "goto <label>" is even better, you don't have to change the language
> |at all.
> |
> |-Ron
>
> Ron, perhaps you missed the point. The major objection to GOTO's is that they
> can lead to spaghetti code, but "break <label>" cannot do so, as it allows
> only a clearly limited type of downward escape, while avoiding the pitfalls
> of having to count nesting levels.
> 
> David   sde at mitre-bedford

I do understand the point, but BREAK-TO is not structred anymore than
any sort of gotos.  If you just say, it's OK to user goto's rather only
in these well-defined casees, you can get by WITHOUT MAKING GRATUITOUS
AND UNNECESSARY CHANGES TO THE LANGUAGE.  BREAK-TO is a total unnecessary
change.  You're not going to be able to get rid of goto (one of the nice
things about C is that it allows careful programmers to break the structure
and typing rules), adding break-to is redundant.

-Ron