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: 103376,86fd56abf3579c34
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bl884@freenet.HSC.Colorado.EDU (Wes Groleau)
Subject: Re: State machines and Goto's (was Re: Should internet support
 software be written in Ada?)
Date: 1995/04/07
Message-ID: <3m3j73$php@tali.hsc.colorado.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 100070380
references: <3m0nv5$67l@theopolis.orl.mmc.com> <3kaksj$iur@isnews.calpoly.edu>
 <3ki9t8$c8l@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>
organization: University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver, CO
reply-to: bl884@freenet.HSC.Colorado.EDU (Wes Groleau)
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1995-04-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In a previous article, dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com (Theodore Dennison) says:
>I have now worked under 3 different Ada coding standards. Every one
>of them had a "no goto's" rule. Since I'm currently editing our next
>coding standard, perhaps someone could suggest a replacement rule? 

X.Y.Z.1 A goto statement shall NOT be used where another legal Ada construct
is available for the same effect.  Example:
      REJECT:                      OK:
         ...                          ...
         goto GOT_IT;                 exit  GET_IT;
      end loop GET_IT;             end loop GET_IT;
      <<GOT_IT>>  

X.Y.Z.2  When a goto statement is coded which is NOT in violation of X.Y.Z.1,
a review meeting with at least one other programmer of equivalent experience
and at least one programmer with ____ years Ada experience shall be held
within five working days to determine whether the use is justified or whether
the associated units should be redesigned.