home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: mics.demon.co.uk!Bill
- From: Bill Michell <Bill@mics.demon.co.uk>
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: READ THIS!!!!!!!!!!!
- Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 00:53:49 +0000
- Organization: None
- Distribution: world
- Message-ID: <qLcY4jAd4THxEwxK@mics.demon.co.uk>
- References: <4em5fs$a86@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
- <4er65q$d8v@usenet1.sjc.in.sel.sony.com>
- <ALUN.CHAMPION.96Feb1201845@g7240065.bridge.bst.bls.com>
- <00001a81+00009bbb@msn.com> <jtessinDMFw3D.2EH@netcom.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: mics.demon.co.uk
- X-NNTP-Posting-Host: mics.demon.co.uk
- MIME-Version: 1.0
- X-Newsreader: Turnpike Version 1.11 <uiEOes1orVXTvvWgSAnAOBUy+p>
-
- In article <jtessinDMFw3D.2EH@netcom.com>, John Tessin
- <jtessin@netcom.com> writes
- >Come on Matt, you're just mad about the header. You know that C & C++
- >programmers are all secretly searching for the case where "goto" is the
- >ONLY way to solve a coding problem, and thereby justify its existence. :)
-
- C++ already includes plenty of pseudonyms for goto:
- - break;
- - return <returnvalue>;
- - else
-
- Even branch instructions have an implicit goto...
-
- Just because the compiler hides such details, it soesn't mean the
- underlying function isn't necessary.
-
- However, I can't admit that an explicit goto is *necessary*. It is
- *always* possible to code a program differently - even if an optimising
- compiler doesn't reduce the code to the same thoing regardless.
-
- The only thing that one can conclusively say about goto is that it makes
- your resulting code less readable, and less maintainable. IMHO, this is
- enough to justify the removal of goto from the ANSI spec.
-
- Any programmer that regularly (or even ever) uses goto ought really
- (unless they happen to be using assemebler) to learn more about
- structured programming, if they ever want their skills to be marketable.
-
- Code without a goto is easier for *other people* to follow. This is the
- key.
-