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: 1997/06/21
Message-ID: <dewar.866897803@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 251571623
References: <5nn2fm$11dk$1@prime.imagin.net> <dewar.866548262@merv>
 <EBxrpn.67C@world.std.com> <dewar.866851293@merv> <EC3uEA.MAE@world.std.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-06-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Bob said

<<I've read it all.  It has very few gotos (and those, I didn't object
to).  Mostly, it's made of loop/if/case.  It certainly doesn't fit into
the pattern envisioned in this thread about FSM's, where every state
starts with a label, and every state "goto"s the next state.
>>

(it = GNAT scanner)

Indeed that is true. That is not surprising, in real life (as opposed to
compiler text books), scanners in compilers have little to do with finite
state machines! (unless of course you are happy with the horrible performance
of nonsense scanners generated by programs like lex)