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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,459feef56669b92d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-03 07:00:39 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!news.iks-jena.de!not-for-mail From: Lutz Donnerhacke Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: "continue/next" for "loop" Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 15:00:39 +0000 (UTC) Organization: IKS GmbH Jena Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: taranis.iks-jena.de X-Trace: branwen.iks-jena.de 1067871639 13077 217.17.192.37 (3 Nov 2003 15:00:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@iks-jena.de NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 15:00:39 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1983 Date: 2003-11-03T15:00:39+00:00 List-Id: * christoph.grein@eurocopter.com wrote: > Really, Lutz, I do not see why you by any force would like a solution > without goto. It's the most appropriate solution in this case! No. "continue [loop_name]" is the appropriate solution. It does express the intent of the programmer. > The goto solution is better understandable than the boolean condition > one. And it's simpler. Has anyone noticed that More_Statments are missing > in the non-goto solution? The "goto label" version is a workaround to a missing language expressivity. "continue [loop_name]" like "exit [loop_name]" would be clearer. Of course, you never need any of them. "if then end if" and "goto" will do the job anyway. > Why is the goto braindead? Your coding standards forbit it? I hate those > silly standards which forbid the most natural solution. The "natural solution" is to command the compiler to skip over to the next iteration.