Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att-cb!att-ih!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1 From: nevin1@ihlpf.ATT.COM (00704a-Liber) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: gotos Message-ID: <4307@ihlpf.ATT.COM> Date: 6 Apr 88 23:12:52 GMT References: <2571@cognos.UUCP> <77200029@uiucdcsp> <1988Apr5.213343.1528@utzoo.uucp> Reply-To: nevin1@ihlpf.UUCP (00704a-Liber,N.J.) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois Lines: 20 In article <1988Apr5.213343.1528@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >And once in a long while, there is no better way. A loooong while. Agreed. Although I feel that most of the uses of GOTO in C these days occurs in the output of something like LEX and YACC, where I really don't mind it. Just as long as 'mere mortals' try to avoid using it. >If I were running a software house, I'd be tempted to say that using >a goto -- except in fixing a program that already uses them -- means >having $50 docked from your pay. It's not *forbidden*, you understand, >it's just that you have to want it really badly! Can I work for you?? I mean, if you would deduct $50 from my pay every time I use GOTO, I would rather spend the *over*time and write code that avoids it! :-) -- _ __ NEVIN J. LIBER ..!ihnp4!ihlpf!nevin1 (312) 510-6194 ' ) ) "The secret compartment of my ring I fill / / _ , __o ____ with an Underdog super-energy pill." / (_