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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,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: Alan Brain Subject: Re: GOTO considered Satanic (was: Is there an ADA analogue to the C++ continue statement?) Date: 1997/09/25 Message-ID: <3429EAB6.32DB@cs.adfa.oz.au>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 275375986 References: <3422F037.41CA@lmco.com> <3423AF1B.5152@i.b.m.net> <6098m7$a24$1@krusty.irvine.com> Organization: ADFA News Service Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-09-25T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Adam Beneschan wrote: 7 > Anyway, my point is: This is the 90's. The battle has been won. It's > no longer necessary to take the attitude that whenever we see a GOTO, > we should let out a shriek and beat the offending insect to death with > a broom. We can, and should, adopt a more moderate and less > absolutist tone, one that says that GOTO's are generally unnecessary > and should be avoided but may make code more readable on rare > occasions. I wish I could be as sanguine. I've seen some really bad spaghetti written in modern languages. The last time I was Software QA honcho on a multi-million line project, I had to personally sign off on every GOTO used, as being In My Professional Opinion, necessary. Didn't have to do it often. I even had to encourage people to use them on one occasion in a code walkthrough, when the non-GOTO solution was really, really ugly. But such a degree of Inertia/Red-Tape is a good way of keeping them to an appropriate (ie Non-Zero but close to it) level. -- Not the Australian Dairy Farmers Association, the Australian Defence Force Academy. aebrain@dynamite.com.au abrain@cs.adfa.oz.au