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: 103376,86fd56abf3579c34
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: G_Haddad@qm.is.lmsc.lockheed.com (George Haddad)
Subject: Re: State machines and Goto's (was Re: Should internet support
 software be written in Ada?)
Date: 1995/04/19
Message-ID: <G_Haddad-190495131049@mactroy.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 101283248
sender: news@enterprise.rdd.lmsc.lockheed.com (News Administrator)
references: <3kaksj$iur@isnews.calpoly.edu> <3ki9t8$c8l@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>
 <3m3j73$php@tali.hsc.colorado.edu> <1995Apr7.141054.17419@sei.cmu.edu>
 <D6qyv0.6Jv@nntpa.cb.att.com> <9511002.21479@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
 <fjm.84.000D0007@ti.com>
organization: 81-80
followup-to: comp.lang.ada
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1995-04-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <fjm.84.000D0007@ti.com>, fjm@ti.com (Fred J. McCall) wrote:
> And what if the common code is (relatively) large and using a (relatively) 
> large number of the variables used by the procedure that it is already in and 
> needs them to have the values which they have at the point where the 
> 'repeated' code occurs?  Presumably you propose writing a function or 
> procedure with 15-20 parameters?  I don't consider that particularly good 
> practice.

   Write a local procedure in the current scope (if the common code is
really large, make it "separate").  Then, if necessary for performance,
INLINE it.
-- 
I found these opinions on my doorstep,
could you please give them a good home?