Re: GOTO considered necessary (reworked)

[nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)]

<5nn2fm$11dk$1@prime.imagin.net>
<199706121410.QAA05823@basement.replay.com>

On Thu, 12 Jun 1997 12:50:21 -0700, "John G. Volan"
<johnvolan@sprintmail.com> wrote:
..
> But what if you had this:
> 
>   loop
>      ... --1
> 
>      if <condition expression 1> then
>        continue;
>      end if;
> 
>      ... --2
> 
>      if <condition expression 2> then
>        continue;
>      end if;
> 
>      ... -- 3
> 
>      if <condition expression 3> then
>        continue;
>      end if;
> 
>      ... -- 4
> 
>   end loop;
> 
> Without goto or continue, this would have to be restructured as:
> 
>   loop
>     ... --1
> 
>     if not <condition expression 1> then
> 
>       ... --2
> 
>       if not <condition expression 2> then
> 
>         ... -- 3
> 
>         if not <condition expression 3> then
> 
>           ... -- 4
> 
>         end if;
>       end if;
>     end if;
>   end loop;
> 
> Whichever side you fall on in this debate, you have to at least agree
> that a "continue" within a loop is just another example of the "process
> continuation logic" situation Sam Mize described.

Yep, that's a mess, and I'd wonder if it might be possible to represent
the data in a way that simplified the code. If not, I'd put the contents
of the loop in a procedure and return when finished.

Jeff Carter  PGP:1024/440FBE21
My real e-mail address: ( carter @ innocon . com )
"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail

Posted with Spam Hater - see
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~net-services/spam/