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: ell@access.digex.net (Ell)
Subject: Re: Software landmines (loops)
Date: 1998/09/07
Message-ID: <35f44e7d.8607016@news.erols.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 388567723
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <l5HC1.6840$wN.1856764@news.giganews.com>
 <6rfra4$rul$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35DBDD24.D003404D@calfp.co.uk>
 <m3ogt3qgca.fsf@mheaney.ni.net> <6sbuod$fra$1@hirame.wwa.com>
 <35f51e53.48044143@ <904556531.666222@miso.it.uq.edu.au>
 <6sgror$je8$3@news.indigo.ie> <6sh3qn$9p2$1@hirame.wwa.com>
 <Oi4H1.219$qj1.315418@newsread.com> <35ece7ee.1489912@news.erols.com>
 <m31zpq4pim.fsf@mheaney.ni.net> <905134925.147581@iris.nyx.net>
 <35f34bbd.7903825@news.erols.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com
X-Trace: winter.news.erols.com 905138978 22343 207.172.52.179 (7 Sep 1998
 03:29:38 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: 1998-09-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

ell@access.digex.net (Ell) wrote:

>rgardner@nyx.net (Ray Gardner) wrote:
>
>>.... Of course my main point was 
>>that the founder(s) of SP did limit the control structures to 
>>single-entry / single-exit structures, and that still stands.

>And your proof is what?

And either way I agree with an earlier writer and point of view that
whatever Dijkstra, Dahle and Hoare may or may not have said about
exits, it isn't gospel.  Intelligent people can and should latch on to
the spirit and essence of what they were saying.  

As I and many others see it the use of multiple exits is can be
consistent with the structured programming goal of being able to
prove, and improve the maintainability of, code.  In fact multiple
exits, in the opinion of many if not most programmers, makes some code
even more maintainable than using a single exit.  And apparently
Donald Knuth concurs that provability is not in conflict with multiple
exits.

Elliott