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,ec4cde5d799065b6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: GOTO considered Satanic (was: Is there an ADA analogue to the C++
 continue statement?)
Date: 1997/09/25
Message-ID: <1997Sep25.063101.1@eisner>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 275414158
References: <dewar.874665174@merv> <3422F037.41CA@lmco.com>
 <3423AF1B.5152@i.b.m.net> <6098m7$a24$1@krusty.irvine.com>
 <Pine.SGI.3.95.970924182021.11641A-100000@shellx.best.com>
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eisner.decus.org
X-Trace: news.decus.org 875183468 27914 KILGALLEN [192.67.173.2]
Organization: LJK Software
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-09-25T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970924182021.11641A-100000@shellx.best.com>, Brian Rogoff <bpr@shellx.best.com> writes:

> In another thread, some rather absolute rules concerning exceptions were 
> put forth ("don't use exceptions for normal control flow"). While I think 
> thats a good guideline, I've also written code that violates that rule and 
> was IMO more readable because of it (if you must know, it was in the top 
> level loop for an interpreter for a Lisp like language; I used an exception
> to terminate the loop when a (quit) was evaluated). 

I would expect those who implement Ada to take the name "exception" at
face value and feel free to make it considerably less efficient than
other mechanisms.  This is not much of an issue for the (quit)
operation (presuming Lisp has a meaning for that similar to what
I might guess), but for other situations using exceptions in the
normal flow of things would slow them down.

For most programs, readability is not the _only_ goal.

Larry Kilgallen