[for-loop] Is it a bad practice to use break in a for loop?

Is it a bad practice to use break statement inside a for loop?

Say, I am searching for an value in an array. Compare inside a for loop and when value is found, break; to exit the for loop.

Is this a bad practice? I have seen the alternative used: define a variable vFound and set it to true when the value is found and check vFound in the for statement condition. But is it necessary to create a new variable just for this purpose?

I am asking in the context of a normal C or C++ for loop.

P.S: The MISRA coding guidelines advise against using break.

Far from bad practice, Python (and other languages?) extended the for loop structure so part of it will only be executed if the loop doesn't break.

for n in range(5):
    for m in range(3):
        if m >= n:
            print('stop!')
            break
        print(m, end=' ')
    else:
        print('finished.')

Output:

stop!
0 stop!
0 1 stop!
0 1 2 finished.
0 1 2 finished.

Equivalent code without break and that handy else:

for n in range(5):
    aborted = False
    for m in range(3):
        if not aborted:
            if m >= n:
                print('stop!')
                aborted = True
            else:            
                print(m, end=' ')
    if not aborted:
        print('finished.')

There is nothing inherently wrong with using a break statement but nested loops can get confusing. To improve readability many languages (at least Java does) support breaking to labels which will greatly improve readability.

int[] iArray = new int[]{0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9};
int[] jArray = new int[]{0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9};

// label for i loop
iLoop: for (int i = 0; i < iArray.length; i++) {

    // label for j loop
    jLoop: for (int j = 0; j < jArray.length; j++) {

        if(iArray[i] < jArray[j]){
            // break i and j loops
            break iLoop;
        } else if (iArray[i] > jArray[j]){  
            // breaks only j loop
            break jLoop;
        } else {
            // unclear which loop is ending
            // (breaks only the j loop)
            break;
        }
    }
}

I will say that break (and return) statements often increase cyclomatic complexity which makes it harder to prove code is doing the correct thing in all cases.

If you're considering using a break while iterating over a sequence for some particular item, you might want to reconsider the data structure used to hold your data. Using something like a Set or Map may provide better results.

I agree with others who recommend using break. The obvious consequential question is why would anyone recommend otherwise? Well... when you use break, you skip the rest of the code in the block, and the remaining iterations. Sometimes this causes bugs, for example:

• a resource acquired at the top of the block may be released at the bottom (this is true even for blocks inside for loops), but that release step may be accidentally skipped when a "premature" exit is caused by a break statement (in "modern" C++, "RAII" is used to handle this in a reliable and exception-safe way: basically, object destructors free resources reliably no matter how a scope is exited)

• someone may change the conditional test in the for statement without noticing that there are other delocalised exit conditions

• ndim's answer observes that some people may avoid breaks to maintain a relatively consistent loop run-time, but you were comparing break against use of a boolean early-exit control variable where that doesn't hold

Every now and then people observing such bugs realise they can be prevented/mitigated by this "no breaks" rule... indeed, there's a whole related strategy for "safer" programming called "structured programming", where each function is supposed to have a single entry and exit point too (i.e. no goto, no early return). It may eliminate some bugs, but it doubtless introduces others. Why do they do it?

• they have a development framework that encourages a particular style of programming / code, and they've statistical evidence that this produces a net benefit in that limited framework, or
• they've been influenced by programming guidelines or experience within such a framework, or
• they're just dictatorial idiots, or
• any of the above + historical inertia (relevant in that the justifications are more applicable to C than modern C++).

Using break as well as continue in a for loop is perfectly fine.

It simplifies the code and improves its readability.

I disagree!

Why would you ignore the built-in functionality of a for loop to make your own? You do not need to reinvent the wheel.

I think it makes more sense to have your checks at the top of your for loop like so

for(int i = 0; i < myCollection.Length && myCollection[i].SomeValue != "Break Condition"; i++)
{
//loop body
}

or if you need to process the row first

for(int i = 0; i < myCollection.Length && (i == 0 ? true : myCollection[i-1].SomeValue != "Break Condition"); i++)
{
//loop body
}

This way you can write a function to perform everything and make much cleaner code.

for(int i = 0; i < myCollection.Length && (i == 0 ? true : myCollection[i-1].SomeValue != "Break Condition"); i++)
{
    DoAllThatCrazyStuff(myCollection[i]);
}

Or if your condition is complicated you can move that code out too!

for(int i = 0; i < myCollection.Length && BreakFunctionCheck(i, myCollection); i++)
{
    DoAllThatCrazyStuff(myCollection[i]);
}

"Professional Code" that is riddled with breaks doesn't really sound like professional code to me. It sounds like lazy coding ;)

In your example you do not know the number of iterations for the for loop. Why not use while loop instead, which allows the number of iterations to be indeterminate at the beginning?

It is hence not necessary to use break statemement in general, as the loop can be better stated as a while loop.

You can find all sorts of professional code with 'break' statements in them. It perfectly make sense to use this whenever necessary. In your case this option is better than creating a separate variable just for the purpose of coming out of the loop.

It depends on the language. While you can possibly check a boolean variable here:

for (int i = 0; i < 100 && stayInLoop; i++) { ... }

it is not possible to do it when itering over an array:

for element in bigList: ...

Anyway, break would make both codes more readable.

break is a completely acceptable statement to use (so is continue, btw). It's all about code readability -- as long as you don't have overcomplicated loops and such, it's fine.

It's not like they were the same league as goto. :)

I don't see any reason why it would be a bad practice PROVIDED that you want to complete STOP processing at that point.

Depends on your use case. There are applications where the runtime of a for loop needs to be constant (e.g. to satisfy some timing constraints, or to hide your data internals from timing based attacks).

In those cases it will even make sense to set a flag and only check the flag value AFTER all the for loop iterations have actually run. Of course, all the for loop iterations need to run code that still takes about the same time.

If you do not care about the run time... use break; and continue; to make the code easier to read.

On MISRA 98 rules, that is used on my company in C dev, break statement shall not be used...

Edit : Break is allowed in MISRA '04

It's perfectly valid to use break - as others have pointed out, it's nowhere in the same league as goto.

Although you might want to use the vFound variable when you want to check outside the loop whether the value was found in the array. Also from a maintainability point of view, having a common flag signalling the exit criteria might be useful.

No, break is the correct solution.

Adding a boolean variable makes the code harder to read and adds a potential source of errors.

Ofcourse, break; is the solution to stop the for loop or foreach loop. I used it in php in foreach and for loop and found working.

General rule: If following a rule requires you to do something more awkward and difficult to read then breaking the rule, then break the rule.

In the case of looping until you find something, you run into the problem of distinguishing found versus not found when you get out. That is:

for (int x=0;x<fooCount;++x)
{
  Foo foo=getFooSomehow(x);
  if (foo.bar==42)
    break;
}
// So when we get here, did we find one, or did we fall out the bottom?

So okay, you can set a flag, or initialize a "found" value to null. But

That's why in general I prefer to push my searches into functions:

Foo findFoo(int wantBar)
{
  for (int x=0;x<fooCount;++x)
  {
    Foo foo=getFooSomehow(x);
    if (foo.bar==wantBar)
      return foo;
  }
  // Not found
  return null;
}

This also helps to unclutter the code. In the main line, "find" becomes a single statement, and when the conditions are complex, they're only written once.

I did some analysis on the codebase I'm currently working on (40,000 lines of JavaScript).

I found only 22 break statements, of those:

• 19 were used inside switch statements (we only have 3 switch statements in total!).
• 2 were used inside for loops - a code that I immediately classified as to be refactored into separate functions and replaced with return statement.
• As for the final break inside while loop... I ran git blame to see who wrote this crap!

So according to my statistics: If break is used outside of switch, it is a code smell.

I also searched for continue statements. Found none.

In the embedded world, there is a lot of code out there that uses the following construct:

    while(1)
    { 
         if (RCIF)
           gx();
         if (command_received == command_we_are_waiting_on)
           break;
         else if ((num_attempts > MAX_ATTEMPTS) || (TickGet() - BaseTick > MAX_TIMEOUT))
           return ERROR;
         num_attempts++;
    }
    if (call_some_bool_returning_function())
      return TRUE;
    else
      return FALSE;

This is a very generic example, lots of things are happening behind the curtain, interrupts in particular. Don't use this as boilerplate code, I'm just trying to illustrate an example.

My personal opinion is that there is nothing wrong with writing a loop in this manner as long as appropriate care is taken to prevent remaining in the loop indefinitely.