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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,99222a5bd46ef3c9 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: vsnyder@gyre.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder) Subject: Re: GOTO considered necessary (reworked) Date: 1997/06/25 Message-ID: <5os4f0$4ud@netline.jpl.nasa.gov>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 252863908 References: <5nn2fm$11dk$1@prime.imagin.net> <33A0840B.1B41@sprintmail.com> <33A58C79.1C7A@sprintmail.com> Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-06-25T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Many years ago, in an April issue of Comm. ACM., somebody proposed replacing GOTO with COMEFROM. COMEFROM was implemented in INTERCAL. This spoof comes to mind whenever somebody discusses GOTO. I've decided there's some value in it. Instead of _replacing_ GOTO by COMEFROM, require all GOTO's to be labelled, require that they transfer to a labelled COMEFROM, and require that the COMEFROM refers to the label of the GOTO that goes to the COMEFROM. The primary objection mentioned in Dijkstra's original letter "GOTO considered harmful" is the difficulty in discovering how control reaches a certain point in a program. Coupling GOTO and COMEFROM reduces the severity of that objection. -- What fraction of Americans believe | Van Snyder Wrestling is real and NASA is fake? | vsnyder@math.jpl.nasa.gov