Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!think!ima!haddock!karl
From: karl@haddock
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: C-STYLE (goto?)
Message-ID: <86900052@haddock>
Date: Wed, 10-Sep-86 17:33:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: haddock.86900052
Posted: Wed Sep 10 17:33:00 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 14-Sep-86 20:14:15 EDT
References: <3253@brl-smok>
Lines: 21
Nf-ID: #R:brl-smok:-325300:haddock:86900052:000:1042
Nf-From: haddock!karl    Sep 10 17:33:00 1986


killer!toma (Tom Armistead) writes:
>In article <3253@brl-smoke.ARPA>, jeff@isi-vaxa.ARPA writes:
>>[code deleted]
>>Now, I know a lot of people detest this because of the use of goto's, but
>>this seems the nicest way to perform this function.
>
>There is always the use of setjmp and longjmp ...: [code deleted]
>This will accomplish the same thing and possibly not affend the goto haters,

Mother of swapper!  A longjmp is *worse* than a goto.  It's just a goto that
doesn't respect function boundaries!  Anyone who disapproves of goto but
considers longjmp acceptable is objecting to the keyword rather than the
concept ("I know goto is bad because my teacher said so").  (I'm not flaming
Tom; his posting did not imply approval.)

Lest you misunderstand me -- I am not a "goto hater".  There are three valid
uses of goto, one of which is error handling.  Jeff, your program is a good
example of proper goto usage.  Leave it that way, but learn why it's right.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl; karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint