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: 1997/06/20
Message-ID: <dewar.866851178@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 251456505
References: <5nn2fm$11dk$1@prime.imagin.net> <EBpyzK.5pH@world.std.com>
 <33A58C79.1C7A@sprintmail.com> <dewar.866548262@merv>
 <EBxrpn.67C@world.std.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-06-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Bob Duff said

<<I disagree.  In the loop/case method, you can put "State := Bad_State;"
at the top of the loop, and then "when Bad_State => Assert(False);" in
the case statement.  With the goto solution, you have to use care on
each state, rather than once for the whole mess.>>

I disagree, I find it ugly to force you to do a state transition by
reassigning the state, when there is no state transition.

Furthermore, if you want a simple canonical way to prevent fall through,
just say

   raise Program_Error; <<state-name>>

to label a state.