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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,86fd56abf3579c34 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: brh@cray.com (Brian Hanson) Subject: Re: State machines and Goto's (was Re: Sho Date: 1995/04/20 Message-ID: <1995Apr20.092610.5812@driftwood.cray.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 101283221 references: organization: Cray Research, Inc., Eagan, MN reply-to: brh@cray.com newsgroups: comp.lang.ada originator: brh@fir306 Date: 1995-04-20T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article 000D0007@ti.com, fjm@ti.com (Fred J. McCall) writes: > In article <9511002.21479@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) writes: > > >The alternative should not be to replicate the code, it should > >be to put the common code into a procedure or function. > > And what if the common code is (relatively) large and using a (relatively) > large number of the variables used by the procedure that it is already in and > needs them to have the values which they have at the point where the > 'repeated' code occurs? Presumably you propose writing a function or > procedure with 15-20 parameters? I don't consider that particularly good > practice. Can you say "Nested procedure definition"? -- -- Brian Hanson -- brh@cray.com