Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!sunquest!ggg
From: ggg@sunquest.UUCP (Guy Greenwald)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: The final word on GOTO (Don't I wis
Summary: Goto's redundant
Message-ID: <526@sunquest.UUCP>
Date: 9 Oct 89 15:32:23 GMT
References: <20324@<1989Sep14> <225800222@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <4208@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> <6396@ficc.uu.net>
Distribution: na
Organization: Sunquest Information Systems, Tucson
Lines: 46

The structure

	switch(c) {
		case 'd':
			...
			goto something;
		case 'u':
			...
			goto something;
		...:
			...
			goto something;
		something:	/* Where's the default? */
	}

can easily be replaced with

	switch(c) {
		case 'd':
			...
			something();
			break;
		case 'u':
			...
			something();
			break;
		...:
			...
			something();
			break;
		default:
			...
			break;
	}

with no loss of clarity. Other transformations are possible, too.
The fact that some standard library implementation uses it isn't
convincing, either. I had to write my own strpbrk for VAX C because
the standard library routine performed miserably for the long
strings my code was processing (10K+). Useful routines can be
poorly implemented.

The first implementation given above will execute slightly faster than
the second, but why is it "easier to read?" I can't see that the
goto's are really necessary. (something() could be implemented as a
macro if it needs to be faster.)