Re: GOTO considered Satanic (was: Is there an ADA analogue to the C++ continue statement?)

[Brian Rogoff <bpr@shellx.best.com>]

On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Matthew Heaney wrote:
> In article <Pine.SGI.3.95.970924182021.11641A-100000@shellx.best.com>,
> Brian Rogoff <bpr@shellx.best.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> >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). 
> 
> Well, there are reasons for not using exceptions for normal control flow:
> the famous RM 11.6 (though that section may - I think - only apply to
> predefined exceptions; that section still throws me).  If you need a goto,
> then use a goto, not an exception.

I didn't "need" a goto, a quit call can be deeply nested. The efficiency 
argument is also irrelevant here, as I was quitting. The point is that 
this is an exception :-) to the absolute rule about exceptions. Jon
Anthony's iterator approach in Ada is another. 

As an aside, Matthew, it is unnecessary to send mail *and* follow up the
article. Please learn how to tell your newsreader to just follow up, or 
just send mail.

-- Brian