home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: druid.borland.com!usenet
- From: pete@borland.com (Pete Becker)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.pl1
- Subject: Re: GOTO controversy
- Date: 5 Mar 1996 21:29:43 GMT
- Organization: Borland International
- Message-ID: <4hibo7$nr1@druid.borland.com>
- References: <rcshlds.1.000A6705@mailserv.mta.ca> <Dn8pJ8.nqs@emi.net> <4grt4e$8fg@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU> <4hhdcu$43p@due.unit.no>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: pbecker.borland.com
- Mime-Version: 1.0
- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
- X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.5
-
- In article <4hhdcu$43p@due.unit.no>, toriver@pvv.unit.no says...
- >
- >rav@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (++ robin) writes:
- >[original code example deleted for brevity, see
- ><URL:news:Dn8pJ8.nqs@emi.net> for details]
- >
- >>
- >>Is there any reason why the GOTOs can't be replaced by
- >>the particular action routine?
- >
- >As he said, backtracking. The alternative would be to include yet another
- >function call in each successive if-sentence, making the code ugly.
- >Using gotos, the code _can_ be made to express the intended flow much
- >better, as in his example.
- >
- >Are there any other languages than Prolog that implement a "machine" for
- >backtracking?
-
- Yup: C++, through destructors.
-
-