on goto
in [General Programming]
|
From: Phil Carmody on 10 May 2010 03:38 "Nathan Baker" <nathancbaker(a)gmail.com> writes: > "Dave Harris" <brangdon(a)cix.co.uk> wrote in message > news:memo.20100509163449.5892C(a)brangdon.cix.compulink.co.uk... >> >> Yes. It led to simple code, but that was partly because all the >> complexity was hidden behind an iterator. Nathan Baker's version exposes >> some of that complexity, and I think illustrates how hard it is to get it >> right. >> > > Perhaps the words "simple" and "complexity" have different meanings to > different people because of their different training and the goals they've > been conditioned to target?? > > Juha's code uses 3 loop constructs, 4 conditionals, and 2 exit points. > > Mine uses 1 loop construct, 2 conditionals, and 1 exit point. Heading up-thread, the most recent code from you I see is: """ while ( data[xInd][yInd][zInd] != value && result != 0) { ++zInd; if (( zInd < data[xInd][yInd].size() ) != true ) { zInd = 0; + +yInd}; if (( yInd < data[xInd].size() ) != true ) { yInd = 0; ++xInd}; if (( xInd < data.size() ) != true ) { result = 0 }; } """ Which may have one loop construct, but 9 logical tests - at least 8 of which are performed on every iteration of the loop. Where you get "2 conditionals" from, I don't know. Phil -- I find the easiest thing to do is to k/f myself and just troll away -- David Melville on r.a.s.f1
From: Nick Keighley on 10 May 2010 04:15 On 9 May, 09:52, Tim Streater <timstrea...(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > In article > <967ab68e-ce6a-4767-8435-6810e10a6...(a)p2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, > Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > On 8 May, 17:46, Tim Streater <timstrea...(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > > > In article > > > <5dd9bdc8-4dc4-4537-84a0-885c4c92f...(a)l28g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > > > Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 8 May, 01:41, Lie Ryan <lie.1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I've never heard of any programming languages that doesn't support > > > > > > recursion. > > > > > > FORTRAN (in its original form), Coral-66 you had to use a special > > > > keyword to indicate a function was recursive. Some BASICs probably > > > > didn't alow recursion. But these all qualify as "ancient" (and maybe > > > > jocular!) > > > > What FORTRAN are you referring to. I never saw it in any FORTRAN up to > > > 1978 (the last time I used FORTRAN). > > > lost me. So far as I remember FORTRAN didn't have recursion. Am I > > wrong? Or are you saying even modern Fortran doesn't have recursion? > > I'm saying that no FORTRAN that I used (up to 1978, last time I used > FORTRAN) had recursion or any hint of it. This was on a variety of > platforms - CDC (6000 series), IBM (7094, 360/370), SIGMA7, ... so you are agreeeing with me?
From: Richard Heathfield on 10 May 2010 04:51 Seebs wrote: > On 2010-05-10, Richard Heathfield <rjh(a)see.sig.invalid> wrote: >> Yes. But, for me, SESE is idiomatic. > > That's not an idiom, that's a policy. Yes, but it's an idiomatic policy. A high-level idiom, if you like. > An idiom is a very specific way of writing a loop, That definition of "idiom" is far too restrictive. For example, it excludes if((fp = fopen(filename, filemode)) == NULL), which is certainly not a very specific way of writing a loop, and yet it is most definitely idiomatic. I understand the point behind your reply, of course. It's just that I don't agree with it. (As with many style issues, there is no one right answer that works for everybody.) <snip> -- Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk> Email: -http://www. +rjh@ "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line vacant - apply within
From: gwowen on 10 May 2010 05:08 On May 10, 9:26 am, Tim Streater <timstrea...(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > Hard to say. Does modern FORTRAN have recursion? No good asking me! Yes, since Fortran 90.
From: Nathan on 10 May 2010 08:34
On May 10, 3:38 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > "Nathan Baker" <nathancba...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > "Dave Harris" <brang...(a)cix.co.uk> wrote in message > >news:memo.20100509163449.5892C(a)brangdon.cix.compulink.co.uk... > > >> Yes. It led to simple code, but that was partly because all the > >> complexity was hidden behind an iterator. Nathan Baker's version exposes > >> some of that complexity, and I think illustrates how hard it is to get it > >> right. > > > Perhaps the words "simple" and "complexity" have different meanings to > > different people because of their different training and the goals they've > > been conditioned to target?? > > > Juha's code uses 3 loop constructs, 4 conditionals, and 2 exit points. > > > Mine uses 1 loop construct, 2 conditionals, and 1 exit point. > > Heading up-thread, the most recent code from you I see is: > > """ > while ( data[xInd][yInd][zInd] != value && result != 0) > { > ++zInd; > if (( zInd < data[xInd][yInd].size() ) != true ) { zInd = 0; + > +yInd}; > if (( yInd < data[xInd].size() ) != true ) { yInd = 0; ++xInd}; > if (( xInd < data.size() ) != true ) { result = 0 };} > > """ > > Which may have one loop construct, but 9 logical tests - at least 8 > of which are performed on every iteration of the loop. Where you get > "2 conditionals" from, I don't know. > Oh Fat, I was talking about what I posted on May 6th in reply to Keith Thompson: ,--- xyzMax = data[xInd][yInd].size() + data[xInd].size() + data.size(); result = 0; i = -1; while ( i < xyzMax ) { ++i; if ( data[i] = value ); { result = &data[i]; i = xyzMax; } } return result; `--- Perhaps it did not propagate to all servers?? Anyway, it is buggy and Dave is correct about it exposing some of the complexity hidden within Daniel's iterator. Nathan. |