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,f6a85e71d2c330ab
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: checking a loop execution
Date: 2000/04/23
Message-ID: <8dv0ad$pk6$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 614620684
References: <8dl76u$etf$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38fece05.0@silver.truman.edu>
 <8do7b2$p8h$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3901fc68.0@silver.truman.edu>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x34.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 166.72.69.228
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Apr 23 14:11:33 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 2000-04-23T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <3901fc68.0@silver.truman.edu>,
  "Chad R. Meiners" <crmeiners@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Find it amusing that you attach these jokes in reply to my
> posting given that they bear no relevance what so ever since I
> am clearly not allergic to gotos.  So clearly there is no
> reason to go on a crusade.


Sorry, you misunderstood in taking my comments personally, I
was not the least implying what you think about gotos, I have
no idea, and no way of knowing, I was just making general
comments about people's attitudes in general, using the
example you gave as a starting point. The "you" in my message
was not Chad :-) it was just a general comment to those who
get a sick feeling in their stomache when they see a goto.
If you are not one of those, the "you" does not apply!

The "crusade" is a useful one, because the programming field
is afflicted with people who don't really understand principles
and try to replace them with simple absolute rules. These
absolute rules are almost always detrimental (I won't say
always, because then that would be a self referential
criticism :-)

P.S. You ask for substantiantion that I find something
obfuscatory. Hard to give, since this is most certainly a
subjective reaction. The statement is 100% true (that is,
I definitely find the use of boolean variables to represent
control state in this way unnecessarily confusing, and almost
always prefer to restate things so that control state is
represented by the instruction pointer location as nature
intended :-)


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