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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@gnat.com
Subject: Re: Software landmines (was: Why C++ is successful)
Date: 1998/08/22
Message-ID: <6rnh8p$dno$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 383738331
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Aug 22 22:38:17 1998 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/2.02 (OS/2; I)
Date: 1998-08-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

<<> Good point. Typically in this case I would "cheat" it and embed the inside
of
> the loop in a subprogram, with a return statement. . . . >>

This is typical of the kind of obfuscation that I find odd when it is used
in a desparate attempt to avoid a goto spelled G-O-T-O.

A return *is* a goto statement, so is an exit statement. They are both
reasonably well disciplined goto statements, so this means they are neither
better nor worse than corresponding disciplined use of goto.

But to introduce a procedure just for the purpose of avoiding spelling the
goto with g-o-t-o seems very strange.

It is like an alcoholic thinking it is OK to put fruit and yeast in a pot
and drink it months later, because, after all, no alcohol was put in the
pot :-)


-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum