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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cme!leake
From: leake@cme.nbs.gov (Stephe Leake)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Another reason for goto
Message-ID: <858@primus.cme.nbs.gov>
Date: 24 Jan 89 16:58:12 GMT
References: <849@primus.cme.nbs.gov> <4139@hubcap.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: National Institute of Standards & Technology, Gaithersburg, MD
In-reply-to: billwolf@hubcap.clemson.edu's message of 19 Jan 89 17:46:52 GMT
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


What does it actually _cost_ us to have goto in the language? If you
never use it, the only cost is the paragraph or so in the LRM, and
some code (never executed) in the compiler. For such a small cost, why
should we bother removing it?

I know of one CASE tool that generates Ada code, with lots of goto's.
Yes, you would not code it that way if you were writing Ada directly,
but that's the point of a CASE tool; it gives you a different
(hopefully better/more productive/more readable) way to write code.
Personally, I prefer Ada, but I do not want to discourage work on
better CASE tools.

Stephe Leake 	(301) 975-3431 		leake@cme.nbs.gov
National Institute of Standards and Technology
(formerly National Bureau of Standards)
Rm. B-124, Bldg. 220
Gaithersburg, MD  20899