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: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: john-clonts@hlp.com Subject: Re: Software landmines (loops) Date: 1998/09/02 Message-ID: <6sk1k9$3r9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 387193934 References: <902934874.2099.0.nnrp-10.c246a717@news.demon.co.uk> <6r1glm$bvh$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6r9f8h$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> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x5.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 204.254.32.141 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Sep 02 18:09:12 1998 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.01Gold (Win95; I) Date: 1998-09-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , mfinney@lynchburg.net wrote: > In <6sh3qn$9p2$1@hirame.wwa.com>, "Robert Martin" writes: > > >However, multiple exits to a single destination represent a problem. The > >two exits come from two different states within the algorithm. If the > >single destination must do some work that depends upon that state (or if in > >the future, that single destination must be modified to do work that depends > >upon that state), then the code in the single destination is going to get > >pretty ugly. > > I have been following this thread for a while (or at least part of the thread), > and it seems to me that the basic argument is between the use of structured > programming which requires a single entry and single exit and of tree- > structured programming which allows multiple-level breaks/continues, but > not arbitrary jumps into blocks. > > It turns out that tree-structured programming covers almost all of the flow > graphs actually encountered by compilers which are not undecomposable > and provides the necessary flow graph assurances for optimization (I do > have a reference on that, but have just finished moving and everything > is in boxes, so regrettably I can't provide it at this time). Multiple exits > > [snip] > > Michael Lee Finney > > What do you mean by 'tree-structured' programming? A simple example perhaps? THanks, John -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum