Breaking out of a nested loop

Viewed 223475

If I have a for loop which is nested within another, how can I efficiently come out of both loops (inner and outer) in the quickest possible way?

I don't want to have to use a boolean and then have to say go to another method, but rather just to execute the first line of code after the outer loop.

What is a quick and nice way of going about this?

I was thinking that exceptions aren't cheap/should only be thrown in a truly exceptional condition etc. Hence I don't think this solution would be good from a performance perspective.

I don't feel it it is right to take advantage of the newer features in .NET (anon methods) to do something which is pretty fundamental.

26 Answers

Well, goto, but that is ugly, and not always possible. You can also place the loops into a method (or an anon-method) and use return to exit back to the main code.

    // goto
    for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
    {
        for (int j = 0; j < 100; j++)
        {
            goto Foo; // yeuck!
        }
    }
Foo:
    Console.WriteLine("Hi");

vs:

// anon-method
Action work = delegate
{
    for (int x = 0; x < 100; x++)
    {
        for (int y = 0; y < 100; y++)
        {
            return; // exits anon-method
        }
    }
};
work(); // execute anon-method
Console.WriteLine("Hi");

Note that in C# 7 we should get "local functions", which (syntax tbd etc) means it should work something like:

// local function (declared **inside** another method)
void Work()
{
    for (int x = 0; x < 100; x++)
    {
        for (int y = 0; y < 100; y++)
        {
            return; // exits local function
        }
    }
};
Work(); // execute local function
Console.WriteLine("Hi");

C# adaptation of approach often used in C - set value of outer loop's variable outside of loop conditions (i.e. for loop using int variable INT_MAX -1 is often good choice):

for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
    for (int j = 0; j < 100; j++)
    {
        if (exit_condition)
        {
            // cause the outer loop to break:
            // use i = INT_MAX - 1; otherwise i++ == INT_MIN < 100 and loop will continue 
            i = int.MaxValue - 1;
            Console.WriteLine("Hi");
            // break the inner loop
            break;
        }
    }
    // if you have code in outer loop it will execute after break from inner loop    
}

As note in code says break will not magically jump to next iteration of the outer loop - so if you have code outside of inner loop this approach requires more checks. Consider other solutions in such case.

This approach works with for and while loops but does not work for foreach. In case of foreach you won't have code access to the hidden enumerator so you can't change it (and even if you could IEnumerator doesn't have some "MoveToEnd" method).

Acknowledgments to inlined comments' authors:
i = INT_MAX - 1 suggestion by Meta
for/foreach comment by ygoe.
Proper IntMax by jmbpiano
remark about code after inner loop by blizpasta

This solution does not apply to C#

For people who found this question via other languages, Javascript, Java, and D allows labeled breaks and continues:

outer: while(fn1())
{
   while(fn2())
   {
     if(fn3()) continue outer;
     if(fn4()) break outer;
   }
}

Use a suitable guard in the outer loop. Set the guard in the inner loop before you break.

bool exitedInner = false;

for (int i = 0; i < N && !exitedInner; ++i) {

    .... some outer loop stuff

    for (int j = 0; j < M; ++j) {

        if (sometest) {
            exitedInner = true;
            break;
        }
    }
    if (!exitedInner) {
       ... more outer loop stuff
    }
}

Or better yet, abstract the inner loop into a method and exit the outer loop when it returns false.

for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i) {

    .... some outer loop stuff

    if (!doInner(i, N, M)) {
       break;
    }

    ... more outer loop stuff
}

Don't quote me on this, but you could use goto as suggested in the MSDN. There are other solutions, as including a flag that is checked in each iteration of both loops. Finally you could use an exception as a really heavyweight solution to your problem.

GOTO:

for ( int i = 0; i < 10; ++i ) {
   for ( int j = 0; j < 10; ++j ) {
      // code
      if ( break_condition ) goto End;
      // more code
   }
}
End: ;

Condition:

bool exit = false;
for ( int i = 0; i < 10 && !exit; ++i ) {
   for ( int j = 0; j < 10 && !exit; ++j ) {
      // code
      if ( break_condition ) {
         exit = true;
         break; // or continue
      }
      // more code
   }
}

Exception:

try {
    for ( int i = 0; i < 10 && !exit; ++i ) {
       for ( int j = 0; j < 10 && !exit; ++j ) {
          // code
          if ( break_condition ) {
             throw new Exception()
          }
          // more code
       }
    }
catch ( Exception e ) {}

Is it possible to refactor the nested for loop into a private method? That way you could simply 'return' out of the method to exit the loop.

You asked for a combination of quick, nice, no use of a boolean, no use of goto, and C#. You've ruled out all possible ways of doing what you want.

The most quick and least ugly way is to use a goto.

factor into a function/method and use early return, or rearrange your loops into a while-clause. goto/exceptions/whatever are certainly not appropriate here.

def do_until_equal():
  foreach a:
    foreach b:
      if a==b: return

The cleanest, shortest, and most reusable way is a self invoked anonymous function:

  • no goto
  • no label
  • no temporary variable
  • no named function

One line shorter than the top answer with anonymous method.

new Action(() =>
{
    for (int x = 0; x < 100; x++)
    {
        for (int y = 0; y < 100; y++)
        {
            return; // exits self invoked lambda expression
        }
    }
})();
Console.WriteLine("Hi");

Since I first saw break in C a couple of decades back, this problem has vexed me. I was hoping some language enhancement would have an extension to break which would work thus:

break; // our trusty friend, breaks out of current looping construct.
break 2; // breaks out of the current and it's parent looping construct.
break 3; // breaks out of 3 looping constructs.
break all; // totally decimates any looping constructs in force.

I've seen a lot of examples that use "break" but none that use "continue".

It still would require a flag of some sort in the inner loop:

while( some_condition )
{
    // outer loop stuff
    ...

    bool get_out = false;
    for(...)
    {
        // inner loop stuff
        ...

        get_out = true;
        break;
    }

    if( get_out )
    {
        some_condition=false;
        continue;
    }

    // more out loop stuff
    ...

}

The easiest way to end a double loop would be directly ending the first loop

string TestStr = "The frog jumped over the hill";
char[] KillChar = {'w', 'l'};

for(int i = 0; i < TestStr.Length; i++)
{
    for(int E = 0; E < KillChar.Length; E++)
    {
        if(KillChar[E] == TestStr[i])
        {
            i = TestStr.Length; //Ends First Loop
            break; //Ends Second Loop
        }
    }
}

Loops can be broken using custom conditions in the loop, allowing as to have clean code.

    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        bool isBreak = false;
        for (int i = 0; ConditionLoop(isBreak, i, 500); i++)
        {
            Console.WriteLine($"External loop iteration {i}");
            for (int j = 0; ConditionLoop(isBreak, j, 500); j++)
            {
                Console.WriteLine($"Inner loop iteration {j}");

                // This code is only to produce the break.
                if (j > 3)
                {
                    isBreak = true;
                }                  
            }

            Console.WriteLine("The code after the inner loop will be executed when breaks");
        }

        Console.ReadKey();
    }

    private static bool ConditionLoop(bool isBreak, int i, int maxIterations) => i < maxIterations && !isBreak;   

With this code we ontain the following output:

  • External loop iteration 0
  • Inner loop iteration 0
  • Inner loop iteration 1
  • Inner loop iteration 2
  • Inner loop iteration 3
  • Inner loop iteration 4
  • The code after the inner loop will be executed when breaks

That's how I did it. Still a workaround.

foreach (var substring in substrings) {
  //To be used to break from 1st loop.
  int breaker=1;
  foreach (char c in substring) {
    if (char.IsLetter(c)) {
      Console.WriteLine(line.IndexOf(c));
      \\setting condition to break from 1st loop.
      breaker=9;
      break;
    }
  }
  if (breaker==9) {
    break;
  }
}

Another option which is not mentioned here which is both clean and does not rely on newer .NET features is to consolidate the double loop into a single loop over the product. Then inside the loop the values of the counters can be calculated using simple math:

int n; //set to max of first loop
int m; //set to max of second loop

for (int k = 0; k < n * m; k++)
{
    //calculate the values of i and j as if there was a double loop
    int i = k / m;
    int j = k % m;
    
    if(exitCondition)
    {
        break;
    }
}

People often forget that the 2nd statement of the for loops themselves are the break conditions, so there is no need to have additional ifs within the code.

Something like this works:

bool run = true;
int finalx = 0;
int finaly = 0;
for (int x = 0; x < 100 && run; x++)
{
    finalx = x;
    for (int y = 0; y < 100 && run; y++)
    {
        finaly = y;
        if (x == 10 && y == 50) { run = false; }
    }
}
Console.WriteLine("x: " + finalx + " y: " + finaly);  // outputs 'x: 10 y: 50'

just use return inside the inner loop and the two loops will be exited...

I would just set a flag.

var breakOuterLoop = false;
for (int i = 0; i < 30; i++)
{
    for (int j = 0; j < 30; j++)
    {
        if (condition)
        {
            breakOuterLoop = true;
            break;
        }
    }
    if (breakOuterLoop){
        break;
    }
}

I think unless you want to do the "boolean thing" the only solution is actually to throw. Which you obviously shouldn't do..!

Related