Re: Trivial Ada question

["Grein, Christoph" <christoph.grein@eurocopter.com>]

> * Darren New wrote:
> >"Robert I. Eachus" wrote:

[I do not remeber the exact form of Eachus', it was something like the 
following:]

  for i in A'Range loop
    if not condition (A (i)) then
      goto Dont_Increment;
    end if;
  end loop;
  n := n + 1;
  <<Dont_Increment>>

> >> Notice that a
> >> compiler might generate identical code for these two examples.  What
> >> makes one right and the other wrong?
> >
> >Because the compiler isn't the only one that reads the code?
> >
> >"exit when ..." says to leave the innermost loop.
> >"goto skip" doesn't tell you anything about what "skip" means.
> 
> So simply write:
> 
>   INCREMENT: for dummy in 1 .. 1 loop
>     for i in a'Range loop
>       exit INCREMENT when condition (a (i));
>     end loop;
>     n := n + 1;
>   end loop;
> 
> No 'evil' goto, and a 'telling' label.

This was a joke, wasn't it? Is this really better than a simle and innocent and 
nearby goto? A one-time 'loop' enclosing another work loop...

These goto wars are astounding. Event the most simple goto solution is replaced 
by a contrived no-goto one!

I have to confess that I have not needed a goto in so many years, but the goto 
solution is one of the simplest solutions of all 
those presented.