Xref: utzoo misc.misc:6054 comp.misc:6035
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!hc!lanl!jlg
From: jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
Newsgroups: misc.misc,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Re^2: The "evil" GOTO (Was: 25 Years of BASIC)
Message-ID: <13366@lanl.gov>
Date: 9 May 89 22:52:47 GMT
References: <2468@solo9.cs.vu.nl>
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 42

From article <2468@solo9.cs.vu.nl>, by roemer@cs.vu.nl (Roemer Lievaart):
> In article <13113@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
>>       if (cond1) {
>>          [...A...]   /* lots of code */
>>          goto LABEL;}
>>       else if (cond2) {
>> LABEL:   [...B...]   /* lots more code */
>>       }
>>
> 
> Ugh. I would choke on this several times if I would have to maintain this.
> [...]
> BTW. Why not:
> 
> 	if (cond1 || cond2) {
> 	    if (cond1) {
> 		[...A...]
> 	    }
> 	    [...B...]
> 	}

Bletch!!  This is worse than implementing B as a procedure.  I duplicates
the evaluation of the condition.  It doesn't generalize well at all:

      if (cond1) {
         [...A...]   /* lots of code */
         goto LABEL;}
      else if (cond1_prime) {
         [...A_prime...] /* lots of code */
         goto LABEL;}

      [...]

      else if (cond1_nprime) {
         [...A_nprime...] /* lots of code */
         goto LABEL;} 
      else if (cond2) {
LABEL:   [...B...]   /* lots more code */
      }

By your method, the duplicated condition evaluation would be _very_
long and difficult to read.