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: 103376,99222a5bd46ef3c9 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: GOTO considered necessary (reworked) Date: 1997/06/12 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 247924799 References: <5nn2fm$11dk$1@prime.imagin.net> <199706121410.QAA05823@basement.replay.com> Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-06-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Jeff Carter responded to Sam's article with a typical bunch of dogmatic never-use-gotos stuff that smacks of the fanaticism that was popular in the 70's, but I would have hoped had disappeared by now. Anyway Sam, take this as a vote from me that your treatment is very nice, and just at the right level of dont-use-goto-except-where-useful. I particularly object to Jeff's notion that introducing miscellaneous boolean flags to replace structured use of gotos (like the CONTINUE) makes code more readable. Far from it in my opinion, The use of Boolean's to encode state that is more reasonably and clearly encoded in the program counter is a big mistake in my opinion, and can often severely damage readability in these rare cases we are talking about.