Can I use break to exit multiple nested 'for' loops?

Question

Is it possible to use the break function to exit several nested for loops?

If so, how would you go about doing this? Can you also control how many loops the break exits?

Answer 1

No, don't spoil it with a break. This is the last remaining stronghold for the use of goto.

Answer 2

AFAIK, C++ doesn't support naming loops, like Java and other languages do. You can use a goto, or create a flag value that you use. At the end of each loop check the flag value. If it is set to true, then you can break out of that iteration.

Answer 3

Just to add an explicit answer using lambdas:

  for (int i = 0; i < n1; ++i) {
    [&] {
      for (int j = 0; j < n2; ++j) {
        for (int k = 0; k < n3; ++k) {
          return; // yay we're breaking out of 2 loops here
        }
      }
    }();
  }

Of course this pattern has a certain limitations and obviously C++11 only but I think it's quite useful.

Answer 4

Another approach to breaking out of a nested loop is to factor out both loops into a separate function, and return from that function when you want to exit.

Of course, this brings up the other argument of whether you should ever explicitly return from a function anywhere other than at the end.

Answer 5

break will exit only the innermost loop containing it.

You can use goto to break out of any number of loops.

Of course goto is often Considered Harmful.

is it proper to use the break function[...]?

Using break and goto can make it more difficult to reason about the correctness of a program. See here for a discussion on this: Dijkstra was not insane.

Answer 6

How about this?

for(unsigned int i=0; i < 50; i++)
{
    for(unsigned int j=0; j < 50; j++)
    {
        for(unsigned int k=0; k < 50; k++)
        {
            //Some statement
            if (condition)
            {
                j=50;
                k=50;
            }
        }
    }
}

Answer 7

A code example using goto and a label to break out of a nested loop:

for (;;)
  for (;;)
    goto theEnd;
theEnd:

Answer 8

Although this answear was already presented, i think a good approach is to do the following:

for(unsigned int z = 0; z < z_max; z++)
{
    bool gotoMainLoop = false;
    for(unsigned int y = 0; y < y_max && !gotoMainLoop; y++)
    {
        for(unsigned int x = 0; x < x_max && !gotoMainLoop; x++)
        {
                          //do your stuff
                          if(condition)
                            gotoMainLoop = true;
        }
    }

}

Answer 9

One nice way to break out of several nested loops is to refactor your code into a function:

void foo()
{
    for(unsigned int i=0; i < 50; i++)
    {
        for(unsigned int j=0; j < 50; j++)
        {
            for(unsigned int k=0; k < 50; k++)
            {
                // If condition is true
                return;
            }
        }
    }
}

Answer 10

goto can be very helpful for breaking nested loops

for (i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
    for (j = 0; j < 1000; j++) {
        for (k = 0; k < 1000; k++) {
             for (l = 0; l < 1000; l++){
                ....
                if (condition)
                    goto break_me_here;
                ....
            }
        }
    }
}

break_me_here:
// Statements to be executed after code breaks at if condition

Answer 11

I know this is an old thread but I feel this really needs saying and don't have anywhere else to say it. For everybody here, use goto. I just used it.

Like almost everything, goto is not 100% either/xor "bad" or "good". There are at least two uses where I'd say that if you use a goto for them - and don't use it for anything else - you should not only be 100% okay, but your program will be even more readable than without it, as it makes your intention that much clearer (there are ways to avoid it, but I've found all of them to be much clunkier):

1. Breaking out of nested loops, and
2. Error handling (i.e. to jump to a cleanup routine at the end of a function in order to return a failure code and deallocate memory.).

Instead of just dogmatically accepting rules like "so-so is 'evil'", understand why that sentiment is claimed, and follow the "why", not the letter of the sentiment. Not knowing this got me in a lot of trouble, too, to the point I'd say calling things dogmatically "evil" can be more harmful than the thing itself. At worst, you just get bad code - and then you know you weren't using it right so long as you heard to be wary, but if you are wracking yourself trying to satisfy the dogmatism, I'd say that's worse.

Why "goto" is called "evil" is because you should never use it to replace ordinary ifs, fors, and whiles. And why that? Try it, try using "goto" instead of ordinary control logic statements, all the time, then try writing the same code again with the control logic, and tell me which one looks nicer and more understandable, and which one looks more like a mess. There you go. (Bonus: try and add a new feature now to the goto-only code.) That's why it's "evil", with suitable scope qualification around the "evil". Using it to short-circuit the shortcomings of C's "break" command is not a problematic usage, so long as you make it clear from the code what your goto is supposed to accomplish (e.g. using a label like "nestedBreak" or something). Breaking out of a nested loop is very natural.

(Or to put it more simply: Use goto to break out of the loop. I'd say that's even preferable. Don't use goto to create the loop. That's "evil".)

And how do you know if you're being dogmatic? If following an "xyz is evil" rule leads your code to be less understandable because you're contorting yourself trying to get around it (such as by adding extra conditionals on each loop, or some flag variable, or some other trick like that), then you're quite likely being dogmatic.

There's no substitute for learning good thinking habits, moreso than good coding habits. The former are prior to the latter and the latter will often follow once the former are adopted. The problem is, however, that far too often I find, the latter are not explicated enough. Too many simply say "this is bad" and "this needs more thought" without saying what to think, what to think about, and why. And that's a big shame.

(FWIW, in C++, the need to break out of nested loops still exists, but the need for error codes does not: in that case, always use exceptions to handle error codes, never return them unless it's going to be so frequent that the exception throw and catch will be causing a performance problem, e.g. in a tight loop in a high demand server code, perhaps [some may say that 'exceptions' should be 'used rarely' but that's another part of ill-thought-out dogmatism: no, at least in my experience after bucking that dogma I find they make things much clearer - just don't abuse them to do something other than error handling, like using them as control flow; effectively the same as with "goto". If you use them all and only for error handling, that's what they're there for.].)

Answer 12

The break statement terminates the execution of the nearest enclosing do, for, switch, or while statement in which it appears. Control passes to the statement that follows the terminated statement.

from msdn.

Answer 13

I do think a goto is valid in this circumstance:

To simulate a break/continue, you'd want:

Break

for ( ;  ;  ) {
    for ( ;  ;  ) {
        /*Code here*/
        if (condition) {
            goto theEnd;
        }
    }
}
theEnd:

Continue

for ( ;  ; ) {
    for ( ;  ;  ) {
        /*Code here*/
        if (condition) {
            i++;
            goto multiCont;
        }
    }
    multiCont:
}

Answer 14

I'm not sure if it's worth it, but you can emulate Java's named loops with a few simple macros:

#define LOOP_NAME(name) \
    if ([[maybe_unused]] constexpr bool _namedloop_InvalidBreakOrContinue = false) \
    { \
        [[maybe_unused]] CAT(_namedloop_break_,name): break; \
        [[maybe_unused]] CAT(_namedloop_continue_,name): continue; \
    } \
    else

#define BREAK(name) goto CAT(_namedloop_break_,name)
#define CONTINUE(name) goto CAT(_namedloop_continue_,name)

#define CAT(x,y) CAT_(x,y)
#define CAT_(x,y) x##y

Example usage:

#include <iostream>

int main()
{
    // Prints:
    // 0 0
    // 0 1
    // 0 2
    // 1 0
    // 1 1

    for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) LOOP_NAME(foo)
    {
        for (int j = 0; j < 3; j++)
        {
            std::cout << i << ' ' << j << '\n';
            if (i == 1 && j == 1)
                BREAK(foo);
        }
    }
}

Another example:

#include <iostream>

int main()
{
    // Prints: 
    // 0
    // 1
    // 0
    // 1
    // 0
    // 1

    int count = 3;
    do LOOP_NAME(foo)
    {
        for (int j = 0; j < 3; j++)
        {
            std::cout << ' ' << j << '\n';
            if (j == 1)
                CONTINUE(foo);
        }
    }
    while(count-- > 1);
}

Answer 15

Break any number of loops by just one bool variable see below :

bool check = true;

for (unsigned int i = 0; i < 50; i++)
{
    for (unsigned int j = 0; j < 50; j++)
    {
        for (unsigned int k = 0; k < 50; k++)
        {
            //Some statement
            if (condition)
            {
                check = false;
                break;
            }
        }
        if (!check)
        {
            break;
        }
    }
    if (!check)
    {
        break;
    }
}

In this code we break; all the loops.

Answer 16

Other languages such as PHP accept a parameter for break (i.e. break 2;) to specify the amount of nested loop levels you want to break out of, C++ however doesn't. You will have to work it out by using a boolean that you set to false prior to the loop, set to true in the loop if you want to break, plus a conditional break after the nested loop, checking if the boolean was set to true and break if yes.

Answer 17

I know this is old post . But I would suggest a bit logical and simpler answer.

for(unsigned int i=0; i < 50; i++)
    {
        for(unsigned int j=0; j < conditionj; j++)
        {
            for(unsigned int k=0; k< conditionk ; k++)
            {
                // If condition is true

                j= conditionj;
               break;
            }
        }
    }

Answer 18

 bool found = false;
    
    for(int i=0; i < m; ++i){
        for(int j=0; j < n; ++j)
            if(grid[i][j] == '*'){
                q.push(make_pair(i,j));
                found = true;
                break;
            }
        if(found)
            break;
    }

Answer 19

  while (i<n) {
    bool shouldBreakOuter = false;
    for (int j=i + 1; j<n; ++j) {
      if (someCondition) {
          shouldBreakOuter = true;
      }
    }

    if (shouldBreakOuter == true)
      break;

  }

Answer 20

You can use try...catch.

try {
    for(int i=0; i<10; ++i) {
        for(int j=0; j<10; ++j) {
            if(i*j == 42)
                throw 0; // this is something like "break 2"
        }
    }
}
catch(int e) {} // just do nothing
// just continue with other code

If you have to break out of several loops at once, it is often an exception anyways.

Answer 21

Breaking out of a for-loop is a little strange to me, since the semantics of a for-loop typically indicate that it will execute a specified number of times. However, it's not bad in all cases; if you're searching for something in a collection and want to break after you find it, it's useful. Breaking out of nested loops, however, isn't possible in C++; it is in other languages through the use of a labeled break. You can use a label and a goto, but that might give you heartburn at night..? Seems like the best option though.