go_to what's in using them

[marora]

I keep hearing about not to use 'go_to' in your code. However, I don't
know what's the reasoning behind it?

Can any one here shed some light?

Thanks in advance,
Manish

[Richard Tobin]

In article <AM************ ********@bt.com >,
Richard Heathfield <in*****@invali d.invalidwrote:

>I keep hearing about not to use 'go_to' in your code. However, I don't
know what's the reasoning behind it?

>There isn't any reason not to use go_to in your code.

Likewise, there isn't any reason not to use to_go in your code, but
using togo results in undefined behaviour.

-- Richard
--
"Considerat ion shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.

[Walter Roberson]

In article <11************ **********@i42g 2000cwa.googleg roups.com>,
Ed Prochak <ed*******@gmai l.comwrote:

>However even Wirth did not propose complete elimination of GOTO. Wirth
created PASCAL and still included GOTO. His chief use of GOTO was error
handling. The goal of the Structured Programming movement is often
mistakenly described as seaking GOTOless programming. Such a
description is wrong. It was the UNRESTRAINED use of goto that they
sought to eliminate.

Your analysis disagrees with Wirth's own published works.

http://www.swissdelphicenter.ch/en/niklauswirth.php

Yet, Pascal also suffered from certain deficiencies, more or
less significant depending on personal perception and
application. [...]

Certain other deficiencies were due to the author's lack of
courage to throw some rules inherited from Algol over board, in
fear of antagonizing influential Algol programmers. The prime
entry in this list is the famed go to statement, retained
although, in principle, always replaceable by an if, while, or
repeat construct
--
Prototypes are supertypes of their clones. -- maplesoft

[Richard Tobin]

In article <ej**********@c anopus.cc.umani toba.ca>,
Walter Roberson <ro******@ibd.n rc-cnrc.gc.cawrote :

>In article <11************ **********@i42g 2000cwa.googleg roups.com>,
Ed Prochak <ed*******@gmai l.comwrote:

>>However even Wirth did not propose complete elimination of GOTO. Wirth
created PASCAL and still included GOTO. His chief use of GOTO was error
handling. The goal of the Structured Programming movement is often
mistakenly described as seaking GOTOless programming. Such a
description is wrong. It was the UNRESTRAINED use of goto that they
sought to eliminate.

>Your analysis disagrees with Wirth's own published works.

No doubt Ed's charitable nature led him to replace Wirth's absurd
view with a more reasonable one.

The prime
entry in this list is the famed go to statement, retained
although, in principle, always replaceable by an if, while, or
repeat construct

The while and repeat constructs can always be replaced by if and goto,
yet remarkably few languages have removed them. Of all the arguments
against goto, this is the most wirthless.

-- Richard
--
"Considerat ion shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.

[av]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 09:37:47 +0000, Chris Dollin wrote:

>ma****@gmail.c om wrote:

>I keep hearing about not to use 'go_to' in your code. However, I don't
know what's the reasoning behind it?

`goto`, not `go_to`.

Roughly: using goto means that the structure of your code needs
to be unscrambled by connecting the gotos (the goestos?) to the
correspondin g label. This is tedious and prone to error when the
code changes [1]. /Usually/, the syntactically obvious control

bla, bla, bla
you and all ng is wrong on "goto"
because you all seems don't know how that instruction (and labels)
have to appear in the page (or in the screen).

in the first it was "goto" instruction :)

[Bill Pursell]

av wrote:

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 09:37:47 +0000, Chris Dollin wrote:

ma****@gmail.co m wrote:

I keep hearing about not to use 'go_to' in your code. However, I don't
know what's the reasoning behind it?

`goto`, not `go_to`.

Roughly: using goto means that the structure of your code needs
to be unscrambled by connecting the gotos (the goestos?) to the
corresponding label. This is tedious and prone to error when the
code changes [1]. /Usually/, the syntactically obvious control

bla, bla, bla
you and all ng is wrong on "goto"
because you all seems don't know how that instruction (and labels)
have to appear in the page (or in the screen).

Huh? Not everyone reading the newsgroup thinks that goto
is horrible. Several people have alluded to that in this thread.
Many people think it's a pointless religious war.

As to your point that having the label on screen makes
code readable, consider:

int
main(void)
{

int x; x = 1; goto a; a:x -= 5; b:goto e; c:x += 4;
d:goto h; e:x -= 3; f:goto c; g:x *= 2; h:goto i;
i:x -= 1; printf("%d\n", x); return 0; goto g;
goto g; goto f; goto b; goto d;

}

[av]

On 11 Nov 2006 02:31:51 -0800, Bill Pursell wrote:

>av wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 09:37:47 +0000, Chris Dollin wrote:

>ma****@gmail.c om wrote:

I keep hearing about not to use 'go_to' in your code. However, I don't
know what's the reasoning behind it?

`goto`, not `go_to`.

Roughly: using goto means that the structure of your code needs
to be unscrambled by connecting the gotos (the goestos?) to the
correspondin g label. This is tedious and prone to error when the
code changes [1]. /Usually/, the syntactically obvious control

bla, bla, bla
you and all ng is wrong on "goto"
because you all seems don't know how that instruction (and labels)
have to appear in the page (or in the screen).

Huh? Not everyone reading the newsgroup thinks that goto
is horrible. Several people have alluded to that in this thread.
Many people think it's a pointless religious war.

As to your point that having the label on screen makes
code readable, consider:

int
main(void)
{

int x; x = 1; goto a; a:x -= 5; b:goto e; c:x += 4;
d:goto h; e:x -= 3; f:goto c; g:x *= 2; h:goto i;
i:x -= 1; printf("%d\n", x); return 0; goto g;
goto g; goto f; goto b; goto d;

}

the above is the classical example on how not to use goto

if you understand me,
and you want i have some difficulties just post some c code
that not use goto and claim that solution is the best possible
and no goto can make better that code

possobily i rewrite that code better with only(no if, while, for)
use of goto

[Richard Heathfield]

av said:

<snip>

>
if you understand me,

Alas, no. Sorry.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: normal service will be restored as soon as possible. Please do not
adjust your email clients.

[Harald van Dijk]

av wrote:

On 11 Nov 2006 02:31:51 -0800, Bill Pursell wrote:

av wrote:

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 09:37:47 +0000, Chris Dollin wrote:
ma****@gmail.co m wrote:

I keep hearing about not to use 'go_to' in your code. However, I don't
know what's the reasoning behind it?

`goto`, not `go_to`.

Roughly: using goto means that the structure of your code needs
to be unscrambled by connecting the gotos (the goestos?) to the
corresponding label. This is tedious and prone to error when the
code changes [1]. /Usually/, the syntactically obvious control

bla, bla, bla
you and all ng is wrong on "goto"
because you all seems don't know how that instruction (and labels)
have to appear in the page (or in the screen).

Huh? Not everyone reading the newsgroup thinks that goto
is horrible. Several people have alluded to that in this thread.
Many people think it's a pointless religious war.

As to your point that having the label on screen makes
code readable, consider:

int
main(void)
{

int x; x = 1; goto a; a:x -= 5; b:goto e; c:x += 4;
d:goto h; e:x -= 3; f:goto c; g:x *= 2; h:goto i;
i:x -= 1; printf("%d\n", x); return 0; goto g;
goto g; goto f; goto b; goto d;

}

the above is the classical example on how not to use goto

if you understand me,
and you want i have some difficulties just post some c code
that not use goto and claim that solution is the best possible
and no goto can make better that code

possobily i rewrite that code better with only(no if, while, for)
use of goto

And very likely, your rewrite of that code would also be a classical
example on how not to use goto.

[av]

On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 19:11:22 +0000 (UTC), Walter Roberson wrote:

>In article <11************ **********@h48g 2000cwc.googleg roups.com>,
ma****@gmail.c om <ma****@gmail.c omwrote:

>>I keep hearing about not to use 'go_to' in your code. However, I don't
know what's the reasoning behind it?

>>Can any one here shed some light?

You may wish to search out the famous article,
"Go To Statement Considered Harmful" by Dijkstra.

"while, for, ifs Statements Considered Harmful" by me :)

[santosh]

av wrote:

On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 19:11:22 +0000 (UTC), Walter Roberson wrote:

In article <11************ **********@h48g 2000cwc.googleg roups.com>,
ma****@gmail.co m <ma****@gmail.c omwrote:

>I keep hearing about not to use 'go_to' in your code. However, I don't
know what's the reasoning behind it?

>Can any one here shed some light?

You may wish to search out the famous article,
"Go To Statement Considered Harmful" by Dijkstra.

"while, for, ifs Statements Considered Harmful" by me :)

Are you 'ab' of alt.lang.asm? If so, seemingly, you don't like
traditional assembler nor do you like C! Maybe you should start a group
for your private language, tons of whose source you regularly spam
a.l.a with...