Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!hoptoad!farren
From: farren@hoptoad.uucp (Mike Farren)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: goto's
Message-ID: <2567@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: Thu, 30-Jul-87 05:39:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: hoptoad.2567
Posted: Thu Jul 30 05:39:26 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Aug-87 08:18:02 EDT
References: <3289@bigburd.PRC.Unisys.COM> <7571@beta.UUCP>
Reply-To: farren@hoptoad.UUCP (Mike Farren)
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco
Lines: 20

Seems to me that IBM, while not normally considered C experts, have
something to say about the "no gotos/no globals" controversy:  THINK!

I can't see any reason not to use a goto if it makes my program flow
more legible (and that's to ME, not to a hypothetical optimizing
compiler - all the optimization in the world isn't going to help if
I'm confused as to the basic data flow).  Likewise, I can't see any
reason TO use one if other constructs are available that work as well,
have less undesirable side effects, and are clear.

The ultimate goal, I think, is to produce programs which are
error-free and maintainable, and in pursuit of that goal, I will use
any constructs available to me in the language I'm working with.


-- 
----------------
                 "... if the church put in half the time on covetousness
Mike Farren      that it does on lust, this would be a better world ..."
hoptoad!farren       Garrison Keillor, "Lake Wobegon Aq----