Re: "continue/next" for "loop"
From: Preben Randhol (randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news_at_pvv.org)
Date: 11/03/03
- Next message: Preben Randhol: "Re: Macks - adding unit constants?"
- Previous message: christoph.grein_at_eurocopter.com: "Re: "continue/next" for "loop""
- In reply to: christoph.grein_at_eurocopter.com: "Re: "continue/next" for "loop""
- Next in thread: Lutz Donnerhacke: "Re: "continue/next" for "loop""
- Reply: Lutz Donnerhacke: "Re: "continue/next" for "loop""
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 14:23:03 +0000 (UTC)
On 2003-11-03, christoph.grein@eurocopter.com <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!
>
> 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?
>
> Why is the goto braindead? Your coding standards forbit it? I hate
> those silly standards which forbid the most natural solution.
Links on this: (Ada, goto and state machine)
Preben
-- "Saving keystrokes is the job of the text editor, not the programming language."
- Next message: Preben Randhol: "Re: Macks - adding unit constants?"
- Previous message: christoph.grein_at_eurocopter.com: "Re: "continue/next" for "loop""
- In reply to: christoph.grein_at_eurocopter.com: "Re: "continue/next" for "loop""
- Next in thread: Lutz Donnerhacke: "Re: "continue/next" for "loop""
- Reply: Lutz Donnerhacke: "Re: "continue/next" for "loop""
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|