on goto
in [ASM]
|
From: Richard Bos on 27 Apr 2010 07:16 James Dow Allen <jdallen2000(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > PS: Your newswriter seems to have clipped the link, Daniel, which > I then had to hand-enter. I think Google Groups would have gotten > it right, so you may want to switch to that: :-) > > http://www.u.arizona.edu/~rubinson/copyright_violations/Go_To_Considered_= > Harmful.html Except, of course, that it doesn't. Quoted-illegible: Just Say No. Richard
From: Richard Bos on 27 Apr 2010 10:07 James Kanze <james.kanze(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In other words, if goto makes the code simpler, it means that > you haven't found the correct expression of the algorithm. > > And of course, the problem isn't with goto, per se. It's with > the way it is used. Those two statements are in contradiction. And that says all you need to know about the argument that "goto is eeeevviiiillll!!!!!" Sheesh, next thing someone'll want to ban it "for the sake of our chiiillldruuuunnn!!!!" Richard
From: Juha Nieminen on 27 Apr 2010 14:34 In comp.lang.c++ Alexei A. Frounze <alexfrunews(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Now, let's consider C (or C++ where this function has to explicitly > free up some used resources or do some other cleanup). The objects > won't get freed here automatically by the magic of the destructor call > generated for you by the C++ compiler. Make a wild guess what is one of the reasons I don't like C.
From: Juha Nieminen on 27 Apr 2010 14:35 In comp.lang.c++ spinoza1111 <spinoza1111(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 25, 1:09�pm, Juha Nieminen <nos...(a)thanks.invalid> wrote: >> In comp.lang.c++ Ali Karaali <ali...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > I use goto to break nested for loops and I can't see a >> > reason to ban goto. >> >> � No. The correct keyword for breaking out of nested loops (in C++) is >> 'return'. If you are using 'goto' for that purpose, you are doing it >> wrong. > > Don't you mean "break"? Exactly how do you exit out of a set of nested loops with a "break"?
From: Juha Nieminen on 27 Apr 2010 14:37
In comp.lang.c++ Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > This is a purely religious point of view. > > One should never flaunt ones lack of experience in order to back up > ones argument. I prefer "a purely religious point of view" over insulting a person you don't know anything about. |