Re: Ada goto

Re: Ada goto

[Alex Blakemore]

>>From article <1089@shuksan.UUCP>, by scott@shuksan.UUCP (Scott Moody):
>> I for one wouldn't mind procedure parameters and varaiables, 
>> ala C, but I can see that they go against the non goto rational behind Ada.

   >Speaking of the non-goto rationale behind Ada, can anyone tell me
   >why Ada has a goto statement??  (See LRM 5.9...)  The Rationale for 
   >the Design of Ada conveniently fails to discuss it.

   According to John Barnes [Programming in Ada p. 61]
     "The main reason concerns automatically generated programs ...
     [to] transliterate (by hand or machine) a program from some other
     language into Ada"
     He also points out the syntax was deliberately made
     to stick out like a sore thumb.  <<UGLY_LABEL>>

   Sounds like a reasonable tradeoff to me.
   Now if they only bring back the computed goto :-)

                           Alex Blakemore
                           Software Productivity Consortium

Re: Ada goto

[William A. Bralick]

In article <8901170040.AA03554@venera.isi.edu> blakemor@software.ORG (Alex Blakemore) writes:
:-)
:-) [conserving bandwidth ...]
:-)
:-)     He (Barnes) also points out the syntax was deliberately made
:-)     to stick out like a sore thumb.  <<UGLY_LABEL>>

I thought the label was enclosed in double angle brackets ( <<LABEL>> )
because that is how one "quotes" in French.  Surrounding a label with
quotes seems reasonable -- it may even "surrender."

Regards,
-- 
Will Bralick : wbralick@afit-ab.arpa  |  If we desire to defeat the enemy,
Air Force Institute of Technology,    |  we must proportion our efforts to 
                                      |  his powers of resistance.
with disclaimer;  use disclaimer;     |               - Carl von Clauswitz