From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Ada Protected Object Turorial #2: Overview of Tasks
Date: 1999/12/27
Date: 1999-12-27T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <wcciu1k5oqt.fsf@world.std.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 83u89r$5et$1@nnrp1.deja.com
Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes:
> OK, you are not sure that non-local gotos in Ada are nonsense.
>
> > Of course non-local gotos in Ada would make no sense:
>
> Hmm! and now you agree they are nonsense
>
> So I am a bit confused :-)
;-)
I'm saying that non-local gotos are not such a horrible idea in the
abstract. I also say that you couldn't add them to Ada without major
surgery. But since we're talking about language design, we don't have
to imagine very specifically sticking to Ada's rules. The reason
non-local gotos wouldn't work in Ada is accidental, not fundamental.
In other words, I believe I could design an Ada-like language that
allowed non-local gotos. And the non-local gotos would not be
particularly more dangerous than exceptions.
- Bob
prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-12-27 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-12-18 0:00 Ada Protected Object Turorial #2: Overview of Tasks James S. Rogers
1999-12-19 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-12-20 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1999-12-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-12-21 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
1999-12-22 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1999-12-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-12-23 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1999-12-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-12-27 0:00 ` Robert A Duff [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox