Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!mintaka!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!ira.uka.de!fauern!opal!net
From: net@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de (Oliver Laumann)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: scope of malloc
Message-ID: <2229@kraftbus.opal.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Date: 16 Nov 90 12:42:33 GMT
References: <3729@skye.ed.ac.uk> <14413@smoke.brl.mil> <2182@kraftbus.opal.cs.tu-berlin.de> <14437@smoke.brl.mil>
Reply-To: net@tubopal.UUCP (Oliver Laumann)
Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany
Lines: 21

In article <14437@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
> In article <2182@kraftbus.opal.cs.tu-berlin.de> net@tubopal.UUCP (Oliver Laumann) writes:
> >You also keep mentioning the argument that alloca() is not needed.  If
> >this is true, then how do you make sure that in the following function, ...
> 
> I don't write spaghetti code.

I'm not sure I understand this remark.  According to the computer jargon
dictionary, spaghetti code is defined as follows:

SPAGHETTI CODE (sp@-get'ee kohd) n. Describes code with a complex and
   tangled control structure, esp. one using many GOTOs, exceptions or
   other `unstructured' branching constructs. Pejorative.

In what way did the program fragment in my article qualify as spaghetti
code?  Do you regard "callback functions" as a tangled control structure
or an unstructured branching construct (in this case you must really
hate X11 :-)

--
Oliver Laumann     net@TUB.BITNET     net@tub.cs.tu-berlin.de     net@tub.UUCP