1. RE: The 'goto' debate
EX can get by with a GOTO, but EXW will need a COMEFROM.
2. RE: The 'goto' debate
Hmmm... the GOTO thing again. I've already said my part on this before,
and I'll only raise one new point, not really an argument, but more an
expression of frustation and lack of understanding of the request:
Does EVERY programming language need a GOTO? I like the idea of
programming languages being unique, some structured with no GOTO, some
purely functional, etc. I think asking languages to natively incorporate
not-necessary additions of our liking from other languages really misses
the point. Why not just craft the one perfect language and go with that?
Why bother with different languages? Why not just advocate PL/1?
If *not* every language needs GOTO, then why can't Euphoria be one of
the ones to not have it, especially since it's clearly a language not
designed with a GOTO-accepting mindset?
> Don't be a fanatic or fundamentalist
???
Why not? 
Rod Jackson
3. RE: The 'goto' debate
On 6 Feb 2002, at 5:51, kennethroger at prodigy.net wrote:
>
> EX can get by with a GOTO, but EXW will need a COMEFROM.
A COMEFROM? You mean like to know how one got to that point in the
execution? Good idea, i was trying to hack Turbo Pascal to do that at one
point. But why not make that possible in both dos and windows, and *nix?
Kat
