Re: No Go To's Forever!

[Charles Hixson <charles@earthlink.net>]

Roger Barnett wrote:

>  -- snip
> I would argue that this use is clearer than the continue statement
> as provided by C.
>
> -- snip

Personally I find that if the break and contiue constructs are supplemented with
named break and continue statements, I never have the need (or desire) for a GoTo.
Unfortunately, these constructs are not always available, so it is sometimes
necessary to simulate (emulate?) them.
Back in the CP/M days I'd occasionally write a driver where I'd need to either use a
goto or drop into assembler.  Usually I choose to use "sort-of" C, with go-to
instructions for ease in understanding.  But it was nearly a tossup.  OTOH, those
were *VERY* small modules.  A couple of branches in a 20 line routine is acceptable
if there is a good reason.  For that matter I'd rather use a state machine
implemented with goto's than one that was implemented with function variables.  I
find them to be "pretty near" the same concept, and even less intelligible (the true
touchstone!).


-- Charles Hixson
-- charleshixson@earthling.net