Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site ccvaxa
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!aglew
From: aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: and if you put this in your languag
Message-ID: <800012@ccvaxa>
Date: Fri, 4-Apr-86 11:35:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.800012
Posted: Fri Apr  4 11:35:00 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 9-Apr-86 11:15:51 EST
References: <1187@mmintl.UUCP>
Lines: 19
Nf-ID: #R:mmintl.UUCP:1187:ccvaxa:800012:000:799
Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!aglew    Apr  4 10:35:00 1986


>	To return to the issue originally under discussion, I agree
>that GOTOs ought to be listed among the alternatives but I don't
>think that they are appropriate in the kind of situation originally
>presented.  GOTOs are useful as an ultimate escape statement.  In my
>opinion they are not advisable if you merely mean to conditionally
>skip blocks of code.
>
>	Richard Harter, SMDS Inc.

I agree that gotos are useful as escapes.
I also agree that they are not advisable for conditional _skipping_ of 
   blocks of code.
I would also add that they are useful for _merging_ of separate flows of
   control.

Can anyone give me a reference for Knuth's article that I referred to earlier?
I hate it when I know that somebody said this much better than I did somewhere
else, and I can't remember where.