in reply to Re: Re: (tye)Re: GOTO considered (a necessary) evil?
in thread GOTO considered (a necessary) evil?

You seem to have misunderstood my position...

I wasn't saying they were bad, I was just saying I'd worked with someone who thought
a) goto's BAD, no exceptions
b) return from middle of subroutine == goto.

That's NOT my position at all. I believe in _necessary_ gotos, and don't mind return/redo/last/next at all, as long as they're not used to cause chaos :)

  • Comment on Re: Re: Re: (tye)Re: GOTO considered (a necessary) evil?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: (tye)Re: GOTO considered (a necessary) evil?
by Anonymous Monk on Jul 16, 2002 at 11:11 UTC
    I didn't misunderstand. I was just not clear enough.

    I meant that to be a resource you can use in discussions with people whose understanding of structured programming is more religious than practical.

    As for goto, very few are "necessary", and experience says that so-called necessary gotos generally have a better replacement. Furthermore the ability to combine loop control and named loops removes the vast majority of goto statements - including every one that Knuth pointed to in his rebuttal as being useful for algorithmic efficiency. So while I might agree that necessary gotos are OK, I likely mean something different by that than you do.