Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!gatech!ncar!boulder!sunybcs!bingvaxu!leah!rpi!rpi.edu!tale From: tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) Newsgroups: misc.misc,comp.misc Subject: Re: The "evil" GOTO (Was: 25 Years of BASIC) Message-ID: Date: 5 May 89 05:21:58 GMT References: <1791@ubu.warwick.UUCP> <1436@onion.reading.ac.uk> <1814@ubu.warwick.UUCP> <11136@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <24047@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> Sender: usenet@rpi.edu Reply-To: tale@pawl.rpi.edutale@pawl.rpi.edu Lines: 14 In-reply-to: ked@garnet.berkeley.edu's message of 5 May 89 02:57:55 GMT Xref: utzoo misc.misc:5937 comp.misc:5949 In article <24047@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) writes: > Second, why not > ... [ deleted ] ... > gets(ls); > ... [ deleted ] ... > as a subroutine? Because gets() is almost as evil as goto(). Can we say Internet Worm? Dave -- tale@rpitsmts.bitnet, tale%mts@itsgw.rpi.edu, tale@pawl.rpi.edu