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!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!emory!hubcap!billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu
From: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Eliminating the GOTO
Message-ID: <8148@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 25 Feb 90 21:12:44 GMT
References: <5519@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Sender: news@hubcap.clemson.edu
Reply-To: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>From kassover@jupiter.crd.ge.com (David Kassover):
> Ada is functionally complete without the GOTO.  There is no
> program that could not be written without it.  BUT in some
> circumstances the cost of programming around the unconditional
> transfer is high.  (Retesting a condition?  when that condition
> is REAL-TIME and not likely to be in the same state?  Reading to
> the end of a 40 Gigabyte data set (don't laugh, please, such
> exist) when it is already determined that such is futile?)

   There was a paper recently (I saw the abstract listed in CACM
   within the past 12 months or so) which published an effective
   procedure for mechanically transforming any program having GOTOs 
   into an equivalent program using the loop...exit construct.  I'd
   suspect that there would not be any loss of efficiency involved...


   Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu