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,ec4cde5d799065b6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: GOTO considered Satanic (was: Is there an ADA analogue to the C++ continue statement?) Date: 1997/09/24 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 275307806 References: <3422F037.41CA@lmco.com> <3423AF1B.5152@i.b.m.net> <6098m7$a24$1@krusty.irvine.com> X-Trace: 875151246 22389 (none) 206.86.0.12 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-09-24T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On 23 Sep 1997, Adam Beneschan wrote: > The absolutist language "This makes code unreadable and makes its > correct execution suspect" hardly seems necessary. Sure, you can use > GOTO to write unreadable code. You can use any language feature to > write unreadable code. I strongly agree. Whenever I hear the absolute anti-goto rule espoused I flippantly remark that named procedures should be disallowed too, since bad name choice also hinders readability. "Readability" is not easily achieved by slavish adherence to a rulebook. Its achievable with experienced developers who have good taste. In another thread, some rather absolute rules concerning exceptions were put forth ("don't use exceptions for normal control flow"). While I think thats a good guideline, I've also written code that violates that rule and was IMO more readable because of it (if you must know, it was in the top level loop for an interpreter for a Lisp like language; I used an exception to terminate the loop when a (quit) was evaluated). -- Brian