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,fac1372a6e25492a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Ada Protected Object Turorial #2: Overview of Tasks
Date: 1999/12/27
Message-ID: <wcciu1k5oqt.fsf@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 565344008
Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
References: <83hu2h$bba$1@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>
 <83j1g0$ck4$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <wcc7li7uhii.fsf@world.std.com>
 <83sb6f$r3g$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <wccpuvxadvz.fsf@world.std.com>
 <83u89r$5et$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-12-27T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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