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=1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,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: Charles Rose <rose@hazeltine.com>
Subject: Re: Coding Standards & GOTO
Date: 1997/09/23
Message-ID: <3427E983.6CAC@hazeltine.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 274866422
References: <01bcc32e$350b5ba0$6409868b@gateway> <5vqm61$fu2$1@cf01.edf.fr>
 <dewar.874665174@merv> <3422F037.41CA@lmco.com> <3423AF1B.5152@i.b.m.net>
 <dewar.874848062@merv> <3426B51E.7296@lmco.com>
Reply-To: rose@hazeltine.com
Organization: GEC-Marconi Hazeltine
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-09-23T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


William Dale Jr wrote:
> As my charter for implementing a new Ada 95 standard is to have only
> absolute rules that cannot be violated, I am forced to through out most
> of AQ&S as mearly advice.  A major segment wants to use GOTO's ( visible
> objects in specs too ). I'd use the AQ&S right out of the box if I
> could.
> 
> Advice will be ignored, I'm sure, as all programmers know what's best
> for their code.  ;-)

We have a coding standard that only contains absolute rules (and
prohibits GOTOs).  But the coding standard also says that deviations are
permitted provided the file header identifies each deviation and
provides a justification.  No approvals are needed.