Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!murphy%lll-tis.arpa@lll-tis
From: murphy%lll-tis.arpa@lll-tis (Thomas Murphy)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Re: Re: hashing external names & other goodies.
Message-ID: <7198@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 10-Jan-85 19:10:02 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.7198
Posted: Thu Jan 10 19:10:02 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Jan-85 07:40:44 EST
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 29

> 
> > |And "goto <label>" is even better, you don't have to change the language
> > |at all.
> > |
> > |-Ron
> >
> > Ron, perhaps you missed the point. The major objection to GOTO's is that they
> > can lead to spaghetti code, but "break <label>" cannot do so, as it allows
> > only a clearly limited type of downward escape, while avoiding the pitfalls
> > of having to count nesting levels.
> > 
> > David   sde@mitre-bedford
> 
> I do understand the point, but BREAK-TO is not structred anymore than
> any sort of gotos.  If you just say, it's OK to user goto's rather only
> in these well-defined casees, you can get by WITHOUT MAKING GRATUITOUS
> AND UNNECESSARY CHANGES TO THE LANGUAGE.  BREAK-TO is a total unnecessary
> change.  You're not going to be able to get rid of goto (one of the nice
> things about C is that it allows careful programmers to break the structure
> and typing rules), adding break-to is redundant.
> 
> -Ron

By this reasoning we can quickly reduce ourselves to working with a turing
machine. A while statement is redundant because we have goto and if 
statements. "break <label>" reflects a structured concept that mirrors how I
view a problem being solved; besides it is not as random and clumsy as a goto.

Tom     murphy@lll-tis