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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,cf677878aa77e0d8 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-17 11:35:57 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: an infinate loop Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 13:56:24 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9j1u8a$863$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <3B4F2962.25BB60FF@boeing.com> <3B4F758B.197CA145@boeing.com> <9iv0ce$3d3$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B546F9D.4030809@gmx.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.170.200.133 X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 995392586 8387 136.170.200.133 (17 Jul 2001 17:56:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Jul 2001 17:56:26 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10087 Date: 2001-07-17T17:56:26+00:00 List-Id: I have not used a goto in any language since at least 1983 - maybe longer, but prior to that I had a job maintaining ancient Cobol code and I might have actually used a goto to be consistent with some existing code. I'm aware of how little necessity there is for the goto as a result of that practical experience. :-) I know arguments were made for including the goto in Ada along a variety of lines. Some of it had to do with automatic translation of existing things being more difficult if there was no goto. Some of it was undoubtedly to make it appeal to people who didn't know how to live without one. Some of it was, as I said, because there was evidence indicating that goto's got put into languages that tried to leave them out - sooner or later people come up with some practical consideration that makes it worth having them in the language. Whatever the reasons, I have no objections to the presence of a goto in Ada - I just believe they should be used sparingly, if at all... MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Matthias Kretschmer" wrote in message news:3B546F9D.4030809@gmx.net... > > > It is possible to program without using an goto at all (see W.A.Wulf: > "Programming without goto" or D.E.Knuth and R.W.Floyd (1971): "Notes on > avoiding goto statement") - and this should be the right way. Jumps/goto > make the whole thing very unreadable I think and it is difficult to > prove the correctness. Proving the correctness of > algorithms/subprograms/programs is maybe unusual (or done by only a > few), but if you are sure that your way of doing it, is the right way, > it should be easy to prove. Unproven code just waits for its counterexample. > > Once someone involved in the Ada design in the beginnig told me, that > the goto statement was mainly implemented to make the language more > attractive to people who do not want to live without. >