Re: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits

From: Rick Smith (ricksmith_at_mfi.net)
Date: 11/02/04 

Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 15:34:51 -0500

"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:217e491a.0411012330.5ddc9ec@posting.google.com...
> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote
>
> > > And who are those people who want them marked obsolete in or
eliminated
> > from the
> > > standard?
> >
> > Mr Brazee, you and others, implicitly. By insisting on
> > performing only single paragraphs, no GO TO, no fall-thru,
> > etc., you are implying that PERFORM ... THRU, sections,
> > and GO TO are archaic, the first step toward elimination.
>
> I didn't see anyone _insisting_ on single paragraph PERFORMs, or
> indeed no GO TO or fall-through, nor that they should be put into any
> categorey at all.

Insisting; to insist, to be emphatic, firm, or resolute on some
matter; from the Latin insistere, (to) stand still on, to take a
stand.

To say "perform single paragraphs only" and "GO TO is not
needed" is to be firm. To say the same unwaveringly is to be
resolute. To say the same repetitively is to be emphatic.

Mr Plinston, you may not see anyone "insisting;" but I have
seen you "insisting" for years and, a quick search of Google
groups, confirms at least ten years of being emphatic, firm,
and resolute on the matters of single paragraph perform and
GO TO.

> However, if, for example, an EXIT~ does, as had been suggested by
> someone else, eliminate the need for GO TO exit-pargarph, then it is
> axiomatic that in these cases the exit-pargraph label becomes
> redundant and thus the THRU is no longer necessary in those cases.
>
> None of this implies that GO TO or THRU should be eliminated from the
> language. Whether the EXIT~s are superior to the GO TO ~exit, or to
> other structures, has yet to be seen.

Mr Plinston, I said "implying ... archaic, the first step toward
elimination."

To say "perform single paragraphs only" is to imply that THRU
is not needed. To say "GO TO is not needed" is to say so
directly. To say these things with the knowledge that THRU
and GO TO have been part of the language since the
beginning is to imply "no longer needed" and, therefore, old or
outmoded; thus anitquated and archaic.

The sense of "imply" that I use is: to involve or require as a
necessary condition.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits
    ... > You misrepresent my words as somehow insisting that others do this ... I then supplied phrases, ... I only perform single paragraphs. ... Brazee: ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits
    ... By insisting on ... > performing only single paragraphs, no GO TO, no fall-thru, ... However, if, for example, an EXIT~ does, as had been suggested by ... 'unwielding' code and reusing it the way ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)