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,deeb88b0e7eede4f
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Help with Exceptions!
Date: 1996/05/14
Message-ID: <DrEHsy.9K5@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 154767819
references: <4mmimq$s4r@hatathli.csulb.edu> <319764DA.3A8C@io.com>
 <EACHUS.96May13172506@spectre.mitre.org>
 <31987FF6.2781E494@escmail.orl.mmc.com>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-05-14T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <31987FF6.2781E494@escmail.orl.mmc.com>,
Theodore E. Dennison <dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com> wrote:
>...Personally, I'd 
>rather write the unclear non-goto code. The Goto is one genie I'm not
>about to release from the bottle.

Interesting way to put it.  ;-)

>However, I remember vividly the ferocity of Robert Dewar's arguments in 
>favor of goto's for FSM's in compilers. Thus I'd be willing to wager
>that if you look through GNAT's source code, you will find gotos. I
>don't KNOW this, its just a (perhaps poorly) edjucated guess on my part.

I count 56 goto statements in my copy of the gnat sources.  So, the
coders are obviously not goto-phobes, but they are obviously not
creating heaps of spaghetti out of gotos, either.  Of those, 31 are in
the parser, and 6 in the scanner.

- Bob