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,ec4cde5d799065b6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dan13 <dan13@i.b.m.net>
Subject: Re: Is there an ADA analogue to the C++ continue statement?
Date: 1997/09/20
Message-ID: <3423AF1B.5152@i.b.m.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 274046128
References: <01bcc32e$350b5ba0$6409868b@gateway> <5vqm61$fu2$1@cf01.edf.fr>
 <dewar.874665174@merv> <3422F037.41CA@lmco.com>
Organization: none
Reply-To: dan13@i.b.m.net
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-09-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


William Dale Jr wrote:
[SNIP]
> 
> > Why silly? Well to me, most absolute rules are a mistake, since there are
> > almost always exceptions. Note that I avoid the mistake of phrasing this
> > particular rule in absolute terms :-)
> >
> > Robert
> 
> OK, but if you work on my project  -- NO GOTO's.

 I'll bet you also think that there's a magic number which
represents the maximum allowable lines-of-code in a procedure.

 Any coding standard, or project commandment, or mindset, which
bars usage of GOTO *unconditionally* ... is ABSOLUTELY silly.
Yes, GOTO is to be avoided (as a goal), no sane person argues
this. Yet there are times when using a GOTO enhances the
readability - and thus the maintainability - of the code.

 Coding standards etc... should be thought of as *guidelines*;
with "violations" of the guidelines being vetted by some project
specific process.

> 
> [I'd suspect a troll for flames was going on here but I have great
>  respect for Roberts' previous posts ]
>

 Didn't sound at all like a troll here :)
 


                                             imho

                                                 dan13