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 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Martin Dowie Subject: Re: Software landmines (was: Why C++ is successful) Date: 1998/08/24 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 384243706 X-NNTP-Posting-Host: dowie-cs.demon.co.uk:193.237.34.207 References: <6rnh8p$dno$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <$3XHNBAxSZ41Ew4G@dowie-cs.demon.co.uk> X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 903977894 nnrp-11:1431 NO-IDENT dowie-cs.demon.co.uk:193.237.34.207 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-08-24T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <$3XHNBAxSZ41Ew4G@dowie-cs.demon.co.uk>, Martin Dowie writes >In article <6rnh8p$dno$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, dewar@gnat.com writes >>This is typical of the kind of obfuscation that I find odd when it is used >>in a desparate attempt to avoid a goto spelled G-O-T-O. >> >>A return *is* a goto statement, so is an exit statement. They are both >>reasonably well disciplined goto statements, so this means they are neither >>better nor worse than corresponding disciplined use of goto. > and all the "Jackson" fans will want to point out that there is no such thing as a 'goto' of data structures, but there are sequences, selections and iterations. -- Martin Dowie