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: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Robert Martin" Subject: Re: Software landmines (loops) Date: 1998/09/02 Message-ID: <6sjj7n$3rr$1@hirame.wwa.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 387130731 References: <6r9f8h$jtm$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6renh8$ga7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6rf59b$2ud$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6rfra4$rul$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35DBDD24.D003404D@calfp.co.uk> <6sbuod$fra$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35f51e53.48044143@ <904556531.666222@miso.it.uq.edu.au> <6sgror$je8$3@news.indigo.ie> <6sh3qn$9p2$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6simjo$jnh$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35eeea9b.2174586@news.erols.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Organization: WorldWide Access - Midwestern Internet Services - www.wwa.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Ell wrote in message <35eeea9b.2174586@news.erols.com>... >On Wed, 2 Sep 1998 00:44:08 -0500, "Robert Martin" >wrote: > > >>In any case, I note that in this thread nearly every article that advocates >>multiple exits evokes either readability, complexity, or naturalness as the >>justification. I contend that these are highly subjective things, > >This may be true, though I don't thinks so, but adherence to the dogma >you made up about "single entry and single exit" doesn't make things >clearer as most see it in this case. "clearer", again, is subjective IMHO. In any case, I have not been recommending aherence to dogma. Rather I have been describing a cost/benfit trade-off. On at least two occasions, in this thread, I have said that there is a time and place for multiple returns; but that such times and places need to be chosen well based on a real assesment of the costs; an not a subjective evaluation of what "feels good". > >>Finally, I contend that the factors in favor of using a >>single-entry/single-exit style are, on the other hand, quite concrete and >>demonstrable. It has been shown that adhering to a structured style > >You have not shown at all that "single entry, single exit" is a >general coding maxim of structured programming. Well, that's your opinion. But I have cited the section of Dijkstra's book "Structured Programming" that talks about this; and have quoted the page where it is elaborated; and have summarized the discussion. It's quite difficult for me to understand how anyone could read the cited section and not agree that single-entry/single-exit is a core concept of structured programming. I also note that no one else has challenged that assertion. Robert C. Martin | Design Consulting | Training courses offered: Object Mentor | rmartin@oma.com | Object Oriented Design 14619 N Somerset Cr | Tel: (800) 338-6716 | C++ Green Oaks IL 60048 | Fax: (847) 918-1023 | http://www.oma.com "One of the great commandments of science is: 'Mistrust arguments from authority.'" -- Carl Sagan