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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!ncar!mailrus!uflorida!gatech!hubcap!billwolf
From: billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe,2847,)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Another reason for goto
Message-ID: <4139@hubcap.UUCP>
Date: 19 Jan 89 17:46:52 GMT
References: <849@primus.cme.nbs.gov>
Sender: news@hubcap.UUCP
Reply-To: billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu
Distribution: na
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>From article <849@primus.cme.nbs.gov>, by leake@cme.nbs.gov (Stephe Leake):
> 
> If I need a fast subroutine, I write it in "low-level" ada; no
> tasks, exceptions, etc; I would feel free to use a goto (although I
> have yet to see a need for one). 

     Tremblay and Sorenson summarize:

        A common thought among proponents of the GOTO is: "I just
        might need it; something might come up."  The answer to this
        appears to be: "Nothing ever does." 



                                       Bill Wolfe

                                wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu