on goto
in [General Programming]
|
From: Richard Heathfield on 1 Jun 2010 09:22 Daniel T. wrote: > Now watch the pendents on the other side beat me to a pulp for > "being so dogmatic." :-) It's *pedants*, darn you! But if anyone beats you to a pulp for being so "dogmatic" as to favour SESE, that's their problem, not yours. But you needn't worry - they're all too busy trying to disentangle their latest masterpiece's control flow. -- 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: Leigh Johnston on 1 Jun 2010 09:29 "Richard Heathfield" <rjh(a)see.sig.invalid> wrote in message news:JZadnbTcfIU8lJjRnZ2dnUVZ8igAAAAA(a)bt.com... > Daniel T. wrote: >> Now watch the pendents on the other side beat me to a pulp for "being so >> dogmatic." :-) > > It's *pedants*, darn you! > > But if anyone beats you to a pulp for being so "dogmatic" as to favour > SESE, that's their problem, not yours. But you needn't worry - they're all > too busy trying to disentangle their latest masterpiece's control flow. > SESE is a relic, only of interest to programmers who use antiquated simplistic programming languages such as C. /Leigh
From: Richard Heathfield on 1 Jun 2010 09:50 Leigh Johnston wrote: > > > "Richard Heathfield" <rjh(a)see.sig.invalid> wrote in message > news:JZadnbTcfIU8lJjRnZ2dnUVZ8igAAAAA(a)bt.com... >> Daniel T. wrote: >>> Now watch the pendents on the other side beat me to a pulp for "being >>> so dogmatic." :-) >> >> It's *pedants*, darn you! >> >> But if anyone beats you to a pulp for being so "dogmatic" as to favour >> SESE, that's their problem, not yours. But you needn't worry - they're >> all too busy trying to disentangle their latest masterpiece's control >> flow. >> > > SESE is a relic, only of interest to programmers who use antiquated > simplistic programming languages such as C. That isn't the first time you've made that assertion. You didn't offer any evidence to back it up last time, either. Given that comp.lang.c is one of the newsgroups to which this thread is cross-posted, the uncharitable thought has crossed my mind that you're trying to start a flame war. We develop our own programming styles (and use our particular programming languages of choice) for a good reason - we are all different, and some styles (or languages) suit some people's patterns of thought, whilst those same styles (or languages) don't 'gel' with other people, so they use different styles (or languages). Vive la difference! Cultural diversity is a good thing. If SESE doesn't float your boat, fine, don't use it. But to /insult/ it is just ridiculous, and calls your objectivity into question. -- 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: Leigh Johnston on 1 Jun 2010 09:56 "Richard Heathfield" <rjh(a)see.sig.invalid> wrote in message news:5eSdncIco7-UjZjRnZ2dnUVZ8vmdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > Leigh Johnston wrote: >> >> >> "Richard Heathfield" <rjh(a)see.sig.invalid> wrote in message >> news:JZadnbTcfIU8lJjRnZ2dnUVZ8igAAAAA(a)bt.com... >>> Daniel T. wrote: >>>> Now watch the pendents on the other side beat me to a pulp for "being >>>> so dogmatic." :-) >>> >>> It's *pedants*, darn you! >>> >>> But if anyone beats you to a pulp for being so "dogmatic" as to favour >>> SESE, that's their problem, not yours. But you needn't worry - they're >>> all too busy trying to disentangle their latest masterpiece's control >>> flow. >>> >> >> SESE is a relic, only of interest to programmers who use antiquated >> simplistic programming languages such as C. > > That isn't the first time you've made that assertion. You didn't offer any > evidence to back it up last time, either. Given that comp.lang.c is one of > the newsgroups to which this thread is cross-posted, the uncharitable > thought has crossed my mind that you're trying to start a flame war. You are *also* cross-posting to a C++ newsgroup where SESE is an irrelevance. Pot, kettle etc. SEME is embedded in the C++ language itself through its exception support and RAII. /Leigh
From: Juha Nieminen on 1 Jun 2010 14:42
In comp.lang.c++ g3rc4n(a)gmail.com <g3rc4n(a)gmail.com> wrote: > it's the least confusing and quickest way to run exit code from a > function > > void f(bool param) > { > if(param) > { > // do something > goto on_exit; > } > // something else > on_exit: > // some code that was added a month later > // some code that was added 2 months later > } Could you please give some *actual* *concrete* well-designed piece of C++ code where the solution you present above is the easiest, cleanest and safest way? (Note that C++ code may exit from functions unexpectedly due to thrown exceptions. Hence your solution must not leak anything even if an unexpected exception happens in the middle.) |