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: 103376,68321983359cf306 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" Subject: Re: Use of 'goto' Date: 1997/07/03 Message-ID: <33BC28C1.FC2@gsg.eds.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 254346278 References: <01bc7c39$64813260$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> Organization: EDS MS Reply-To: nospam@gsg.eds.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-07-03T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Nick Roberts wrote: > > Theoretically, use of the goto can always be replaced > by other things (this has been proved), but in practice - hah hah! Actually, that's not true. You're thinking of the article by Bohm (sp?) and Jacopini, but what they proved was subtly different and not as strong. > It's never actually happened to me, interestingly, but if I were to join a > project and someone were to say "don't use that goto", I would ask them > why, knowing they could not answer. If it was me, you'd be wrong. I've told that to students, but only when I saw a cleaner way (I've seen situations where GOTOs were legitimately used, but rarely in student code.) > If they still insisted, I would quit, > and that is rare thing for me to do. Code bigots come right down on the > list of the things that crawl upon their belly. Ignorant code bigots come > bottom. Ignorant OS bigots. Ignorant editor bigots. > Is this a dangerous topic, or what? No, it's a lot safer than "My editor can beat up your editor". Even that is safer than "My shell can bash in your shell." > Nick ;-) -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Senior Software SE The values in from and reply-to are for the benefit of spammers: reply to domain eds.com, user msustys1.smetz or to domain gsg.eds.com, user smetz.