No escape from the pit--not break out in time for the For loop

The word "break" is not unfamiliar, the most common is in the switch statement.

If you forget to break after the case of switch, the corresponding statement to the next case is executed sequentially.

I said this is only for C + +, C sharp If you forget the break, the compiler will error.

Think about it as if you had not used the break in other places. caused himself to fall into a big hole again.

For example, use a For loop to find the your_find corresponding index in the array of elements you want:

intindex0;for(int i=; i<1000; i++){    if(array[i] == your_find)    {        index = i;    }}

In this case, the Code of Appeal will complete the entire for loop.
In order to improve efficiency, if we can determine that there is only one index in array arrays that corresponds to Your_find, you can modify the code as follows:

intindex0;for(int i=; i<1000; i++){    if(array[i] == your_find)    {        index = i;        break;    }}

Well, when the statement in the if is true, jump out of the for loop.

The following extension, then for the double loop, the execution of a break, which is to jump out of which loop?
The simplest way to write a code test:

for(int j=0;j<=20;j++){   for(int i=0;i<=10;i++)   {        if(i==5break;   }   if(j==20cout<<" ‘break‘ break from the nearest loop"<<endl;}cout<<j<<endl;cout<<i<<endl;

The output of the above code is:
Break ' break from the nearest loop '
21st
5

So you can be sure that break is jumping out of the nearest layer of the loop.

No holes escaped--no break out for the for loop in time