Re: interesting use of NEXT SENTENCE vs. CONTINUE
- From: "Richard" <riplin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 3 Jun 2005 19:10:12 -0700
> I do not understand what you are calling 'abuse'; a NEXT SENTENCE, in my
> experience, does what the Standards say it should do and what every
> textbook I have ever read say it should do.
A NEXT SENTENCE in the same IF as an END-IF is abuse because the
standard specifically disallows it.
> if I have trodden unknowingly on your faith.
'Faith' is a belief in something in spite of the evidence. Knowledge is
a belief in something _because_ of the evidence.
My stance is entirely that code can be determined by evidence, no faith
is required. I don't assume that there may be or may not be a next
sentence, an alter, or even a GO TO, I can do a text search to
determine absence. Once absence is established then the contexts that
can only occur when these constructs exist can be ignored.
OTOH if those constructs do exist then the contexts that can occur are
much more varied and complex.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: interesting use of NEXT SENTENCE vs. CONTINUE
- From: docdwarf
- Re: interesting use of NEXT SENTENCE vs. CONTINUE
- From: William M. Klein
- Re: interesting use of NEXT SENTENCE vs. CONTINUE
- References:
- interesting use of NEXT SENTENCE vs. CONTINUE
- From: Frank Swarbrick
- Re: interesting use of NEXT SENTENCE vs. CONTINUE
- From: Richard
- Re: interesting use of NEXT SENTENCE vs. CONTINUE
- From: docdwarf
- Re: interesting use of NEXT SENTENCE vs. CONTINUE
- From: Richard
- Re: interesting use of NEXT SENTENCE vs. CONTINUE
- From: docdwarf
- interesting use of NEXT SENTENCE vs. CONTINUE
- Prev by Date: OT - So it's Friday <G>
- Next by Date: Re: RANDOM vs. DYNAMIC on indexed output file
- Previous by thread: Re: interesting use of NEXT SENTENCE vs. CONTINUE
- Next by thread: Re: interesting use of NEXT SENTENCE vs. CONTINUE
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|