Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!xanth!nic.MR.NET!shamash!nis!quad!dts
From: dts@quad.uucp (David T. Sandberg)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Defining structure (Was: The "evil" GOTO)
Summary: thank god I live next to the fire station ;')
Message-ID: <142@quad.uucp>
Date: 17 May 89 19:44:41 GMT
References: <24330@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <13765@lanl.gov>
Reply-To: dts@quad.uucp (David T. Sandberg)
Organization: Quadric Systems, Richfield MN
Lines: 33

In article <13765@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
>}>(Definitions -  structured: code developed by stepwise refinement using
>}>(ultimately) whatever low-level programming tools that are available.

Question: your definition of structured programming actually sounds
closer to modular programming to me.  Please reference a source
which defines structured programming in this fashion.

>................................................. The description I gave
>of the meanings of 'structured' is an accurate account of the change in
>the use of the term.  To be sure, the _new_ meaning of the term is almost
>purely ideological.

The definition of structure that I was taught was quite clearly defined
and relatively devoid of ideology:

"Structured programming: whereby each part of the program consists of
elements from a limited set of structures and each structure has a
single entry and exit."

And this particular quote is from a manual on assembly language
programming, to boot!  ;')

(BTW: I really do not wish to continue the flame war on GOTOs, since
it's unlikely that it will get us anywhere.  At this point, I'm only
interested in clarifying the definition of structure.  Hence the
change in the Subject: line.)

-- 
  char *david_sandberg()
  {
      return ( dts@quad.uucp || uunet!rosevax!sialis!quad!dts );
  }