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: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: Loryn Jenkins Subject: Re: Software landmines (loops) Date: 1998/09/02 Message-ID: <35ED1185.AE01C20F@s054.aone.net.au>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 387075314 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <902934874.2099.0.nnrp-10.c246a717@news.demon.co.uk> <6r1glm$bvh$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6r9f8h$jtm$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6renh8$ga7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6rf59b$2ud$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6rfra4$rul$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35DBDD24.D003404D@calfp.co.uk> <6sbuod$fra$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35f51e53.48044143@ <904556531.666222@miso.it.uq.edu.au> <35EAEC47.164424A7@s054.aone.net.au> <35EBBFAF.DE38C061@s054.aone.net.au> <35EC28BD.351F33DF@s054.aone.net.au> <35EC36E9.2FBC9E79@fv.com> <35EC4E55.3112534D@s054.aone.net.au> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: news.mel.aone.net.au 904729054 24287 203.12.186.77 (2 Sep 1998 09:37:34 GMT) Organization: TekRite Pty Ltd Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: loryn@acm.org NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Sep 1998 09:37:34 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-02T09:37:34+00:00 List-Id: Matthew Heaney wrote: > > Loryn Jenkins writes: > > > Do you still disagree, Matthew? Given that the complexity is pretty > > similar---perhaps with some complexity shifted from the flowgraph to the > > decision table---with the resulting complexity being equivalent. And, I > > think, all your other points have been addressed by this example ... > > excepting the 'performance' issue. > > I like what you did, but still prefer to bail out immediately, once I > know that the answer is false. Thanks. That is your right. Thank you for helping facilitate / participating in the most useful (educational) thread I've read for a *long* time. I certainly have come to a better appreciation of 'tree-structured' programming; and although I won't be using it myself, now understand it ain't all bad ... and, if looked at in a certain way, has its advantages. Loryn Jenkins