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,ec4cde5d799065b6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: mheaney@ni.net (Matthew Heaney) Subject: Re: GOTO considered Satanic (was: Is there an ADA analogue to the C++ continue statement?) Date: 1997/09/26 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 275759378 References: <3422F037.41CA@lmco.com> <3423AF1B.5152@i.b.m.net> <6098m7$a24$1@krusty.irvine.com> Organization: Estormza Software Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-09-26T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Brian Rogoff 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Heaney Software Development Consultant (818) 985-1271