Re: interesting use of NEXT SENTENCE vs. CONTINUE

> At some (IBM) mainframe shops with their '74 Standard compiler

A '74 compiler cannot have END-IF. Therefore there cannot be a NEXT
SENTENCE in an imperitive IF statement. NEXT SENTENCE would do no more
nor no less than what a CONTINUE does.

> there was (significant?) performance advantage in placing
> the "most commonly encountered" condition FIRST. Therefore, the
> "NEXT SENTENCE" construct 8did* perform better than the 2nd (which actually
> only has one test - no "ELSE").

That is complete nonsense. In a '74 compiler NEXT SENTENCE has nothing
to do with ordering conditions. It merely acted as a place holder when
there would otherwise be a null statement.

> I cannot remember what type of "object code" it created, but I do
> remember the need for such code. It is POSSIBLE that my memory has the "first
> condition - most common" and the "don't use negative logic" requirements mixed
> up, but it is my memory that that the first code performed better than the 2nd.

I think that you have these mixed up. You may well use NEXT SENTENCE
(or in a modern compiler CONTINUE) to avoid 'negative logic' but this
has nothing to do with 'first condition' or saving CPU cycles.

It also have _nothing_ to do with the abuse of using NEXT SENTENCE in
an imperitive IF (in '85) in order to jump to an anoymous point in the
midst of zero scope level code.

> There is NO doubt in my mind that they are "logicallly equivalent".

In other's minds, such as J4, one particular item you see as 'logically
equivalent' is marked "must not be specified".

> B) I do NOT object to anyone calling this (or anything else they want) "abuse"

You put up a pretty good approximation of that.

> C) I DO *disagree* with those who call "NEXT SENTENCE" with END-IF an ABUSE
> "because the Standard disallows it" - but do not call all OTHER (equally valid)
> extensions "abuse".

That is complete bullshit. I can label anything that _I_ want to as
abuse and I have provided good reasons why I do so, and it is not just
that it is marked "must not". If _you_ want other things to be called
abuse by you or anyone else then come up with your own _reasons_ for
doing that - without just making stuff up.

There is in fact no relationship between this being abuse and this
being an extension beyond that without the extension the compiler will
reject it. Whether I may or may not care about other constructs or
other extensions is irrelevant.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: interesting use of NEXT SENTENCE vs. CONTINUE
    ... Please repost *with* context. ... > A '74 compiler cannot have END-IF. ... > abuse and I have provided good reasons why I do so, ... > being an extension beyond that without the extension the compiler will ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • ANN.: CHICKEN 2.5 - Its life Jim, but not as we know it
    ... system and are now available as separate extensions ... Scheme programs, statically allocated Scheme data and the ... The compiler can be customized in various ways. ... stream-htpasswd stream-httplog stream-ldif ...
    (comp.lang.scheme)
  • Re: Linked Lists debugger question
    ... With C++/CLI extensions, you can use this RAD paradigma for building GUIs ... I don't think I will be doing any web based applications. ... It has both a very good IDE and a very good C++ compiler. ... it still the language of choice for develloping PC based applications? ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.language)
  • Re: Free FAT16 Filesystem
    ... >standard of care is less than yours, ... Of course, regardless ... For several reasons: ... >both your compiler AND under Keil's, ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: mixing C and assembly
    ... there are compiler extensions or assembly wrappers that link C functions to interrupts. ... Since you hang out gcc for not being "a full C implementation", and for having "extensions quite apart from extensions for the target", can you give me some examples of other available compilers that *are* "full C implementations", which have *no* compiler extensions, and which are targeted at embedded systems? ... The "C" function to set up the UART on an 8051 with a Keil compiler looks almost the same as assembler! ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)