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: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: ell@access.digex.net (Ell) Subject: Re: Software landmines (loops) Date: 1998/09/02 Message-ID: <35ece7ee.1489912@news.erols.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 387044830 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <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$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35f51e53.48044143@ <904556531.666222@miso.it.uq.edu.au> <6sgror$je8$3@news.indigo.ie> <6sh3qn$9p2$1@hirame.wwa.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com X-Trace: winter.news.erols.com 904718959 24870 207.172.52.33 (2 Sep 1998 06:49:19 GMT) Organization: Universe Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: ell@access.digex.net Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 05:01:34 GMT, mfinney@lynchburg.net wrote: >In <6sh3qn$9p2$1@hirame.wwa.com>, "Robert Martin" writes: > >>However, multiple exits to a single destination represent a problem. The >>two exits come from two different states within the algorithm. If the >>single destination must do some work that depends upon that state (or if in >>the future, that single destination must be modified to do work that depends >>upon that state), then the code in the single destination is going to get >>pretty ugly. >I have been following this thread for a while (or at least part of the thread), >and it seems to me that the basic argument is between the use of structured >programming which requires a single entry and single exit The assertion that "single entry, single exit" is a required, or even desirable, maxim of structured programming is a myth. No one (including RCM) can show that this maxim is in fact a coding heuristic put forward by any of the founders of the structured paradigm. [Check past posts in this thread.] Elliott