Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uwm.edu!bionet!ucselx!petunia!kestrel.edu!gyro
From: gyro@kestrel.edu (Scott Layson Burson)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: protected != public-to-derived
Message-ID: <1991Mar27.084419.17959@kestrel.edu>
Date: 27 Mar 91 08:44:19 GMT
References: <1991Mar24.205156.10206@world.std.com> <1991Mar25.183627.6041@kestrel.edu> <264@heurikon.heurikon.com>
Organization: Kestrel Institute, Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 18

In article <264@heurikon.heurikon.com> daves@ex.heurikon.com (Dave Scidmore) writes:
>			    Using the above rational I could say that GOTOs
>are a good idea because anyone using good programming practices won't require
>them.

That's funny.  I would agree with that argument, except I would change
the word `require' to `abuse'.

I have avoided `goto' for many years, but every so often I come across
a situation -- admittedly, not too frequently -- where I have to admit
I don't think I made the code any more readable by using a control
variable rather than a `goto', and I really don't see any better way
to write it in C.  In Scheme I would use tail-recursive local
functions, but the C community doesn't seem to believe in local
functions (and hardly anyone believes in tail recursion).

-- Scott
Gyro@Reasoning.COM