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,
	MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,14f7200925acb579
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: No Go To's Forever!
Date: 2000/03/22
Message-ID: <8baqpr$3td$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 600888260
References: <38D7B41D.B3494C6A@lmco.com> <8b8m2e$8201@news.cis.okstate.edu>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x36.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Mar 22 16:02:15 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 2000-03-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <8b8m2e$8201@news.cis.okstate.edu>,
  dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org wrote:

> >
> >Never use a GOTO - ever. At all. Anywhere. Period.
>
> This seems absurd.

Yes, of course it *is* absurd, but some people just don't
understand when goto's are OK, and when they are not, and
just can't grasp this distinction. For such people the above
prohibition is less damaging to their code than the improper
use of gotos.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.