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: claveman@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson)
Subject: Re: Software landmines (was: Why C++ is successful)
Date: 1998/09/22
Message-ID: <1dfryrf.1gbd5i5fi102aN@n207167116176.inetworld.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 393879525
References: <dewar.902415458@merv> <6qfhri$gs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <Pine.BSF.3.96.980807124210.21259B-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <35cb8058.645630787@news.ne.mediaone.net> <dewar.902578088@merv>
 <slrn6sopmg.4fg.jdege@jdege.visi.com> <rfzpddz3s2.fsf@bnp-eng.remcomp.com>
 <902934874.2099.0.nnrp-10.c246a717@news.demon.co.uk> <dewar.903074236@merv>
 <6r1glm$bvh$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <dewar.903281994@merv>
 <6r9f8h$jtm$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6renh8$ga7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <6rf59b$2ud$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35dc6bf4.5328251@news.erols.com>
 <35dfb9a8.4685477@news.erols.com>
 <M34D1.9023$hr3.4288091@news.rdc1.bc.wave.home.com>
 <slrn6tprs6.fv4.jdege@jdege.visi.com>
 <DOSXjHE9T6DM9Jw9nAyaPxfz@news.rdc1.bc.wave.home.com>
 <6rnh8p$dno$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
X-Trace: news2.randori.com 906523923 207.167.116.176 (Tue,
 22 Sep 1998 21:12:03 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 21:12:03 PDT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-09-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

<dewar@gnat.com> wrote:
> ...
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...

     O. k., I'll bite.  In what sense are return statements and exit state-
ments goto statements?  The only commonalty I can see is that all three are
in the class that used to be called "transfer of control" statements.  Be-
fore I comment further, I want to make sure I fully understand the claim.  
(Similar statements have been made by several people.  I'm just picking on 
the guy that I consider best able to defend himself.)

     I got in very late on this thread, which is why I haven't participated
before.  I've found it very interesting, but it does tend to go on.  I have
a 31-day backlog of c.l.a posts and it's amazing how many of them are de-
voted to this one thread.

                                        Charlie

-- 
     To get my correct email address, replace the "claveman" by
"csampson" in my fake (anti-spam) address.