From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Martin Dowie <martin@dowie-cs.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Software landmines (was: Why C++ is successful)
Date: 1998/08/24
Message-ID: <$3XHNBAxSZ41Ew4G@dowie-cs.demon.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 384238243
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: dowie-cs.demon.co.uk:193.237.34.207
References: <6rnh8p$dno$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 903976644 nnrp-01:16516 NO-IDENT
 dowie-cs.demon.co.uk:193.237.34.207
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-08-24T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <6rnh8p$dno$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, dewar@gnat.com writes
>This is typical of the kind of obfuscation that I find odd when it is used
>in a desparate attempt to avoid a goto spelled G-O-T-O.
>
>A return *is* a goto statement, so is an exit statement. They are both
>reasonably well disciplined goto statements, so this means they are neither
>better nor worse than corresponding disciplined use of goto.

but the arguement for not using 'goto' is that it is up to the
programmer to get it right, and that they can send the flow of
control anywhere.

it is up to the compiler writer to get the 'return' to go to the
right place and the language defines exactly where that should be.

i'm sure that you're compilers got it right mr dewar ;-)
-- 
Martin Dowie