Re: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits

From: William M. Klein (wmklein_at_nospam.netcom.com)
Date: 11/02/04 

Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 23:15:43 GMT

"Peter Lacey" <lacey@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4184715E.6BB3D713@mb.sympatico.ca...
> Rick Smith wrote:
>>
<snip>>
> So we'll replace a GOTO with a goto by a different name except not as
> explicit? This is progress?
>
> PL

Yes,
    When the implicit "GO TO" does NOT include a label name - so you canNOT have
"spaghetti" code with over-lapping transfers, this IS an improvement.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits
    ... Rick Smith wrote: ... >> So we'll replace a GOTO with a goto by a different name except not ... >> as explicit? ... > It is progress for those who use PERFORM ... ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • [PATCH 0/1][RFC] prepare_write positive return value V(2)
    ... from loop_dev it is safer to fail. ... return progress? ... progress: res; ... goto unlock; ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: address of a statement in C
    ... > dandelion wrote: ... Code with goto in it can ... Never written code myself with gotos so yeah... ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Use of subroutines
    ... Go tos are not evil. ... >I still maintain that a subroutine is first and foremost a GOTO ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: Guide to Fortran 2003 Programming
    ... < I regard as an extreme and ill-advised position on the use of GOTO, ... large program one GOTO gave a higher score than no GOTOs. ... One problem in C is that while there is 'break' to exit a loop ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)