1. Re: 3.0 feature request: foreac
- Posted by Vincent <darkvincentdude at yahoo.com>
Jul 22, 2005
-
Last edited Jul 23, 2005
Kat wrote:
> Make it even easier: forget the others, and add ONE versatile and elegant
> word: goto.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:06:48 -0500
From: Robert Craig <rds at ATTCANADA.NET>
Subject: Goto
Since some people think I should come out of hiding
and voice an opinion on language design proposals,
here's my current thinking about "goto".
1. completely general goto, including jumps
between routines: 0% chance
2. goto within a routine: 0.01% chance
3. specialized goto to break out of nested loops: 1% chance
I'm not religiously opposed to goto's. There are some
goto's coded into the C source of the interpreter, and
at one point in the early days I even had one of the
"between routines" gotos that are possible in C using
setjmp()/longjmp(). It proved to be nightmarishly hard
to understand and maintain so I took it out.
I agree that a specialized goto (or special "exit")
to get out of a nested loop is probably less clumsy
than setting up artificial state variables. I just don't think
that this occurs often enough, or causes enough pain
to warrant a new language feature, such as labelled
statements and a special kind of exit.
The normal sort of gotos, that let you jump around within
a routine are like cigarettes. One or two, once in a while,
will not harm you. The trouble is they become addictive.
If you never start using them, you will never have a craving
for one.
When I had to maintain code written by someone
else, the sight of a heavily goto'd section of code would
really be discouraging. The guy who wrote the goto's
probably had some idea of what the control-flow was
supposed to be, but I had to struggle to get the
same picture into my head. Standard control-flow
statements, like for..end for, if-elsif-else etc are much
easier to digest and reason about.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 8 Feb 2002
From: Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com>
Subject: Re: goto...
by inmta006.topica.com with SMTP; 9 Feb 2002 05:47:30 -0000
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.16 201-229-121-116-20010115) with SMTP
id <20020209054729.TXNH9253.tomts20-srv.bellnexxia.net@Rob>
for <EUforum at topica.com>; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 00:47:29 -0500
charset="iso-8859-1"
Euler German writes:
> Though I'd love to here a word or two from Rob.
> Hello Rob! Your time now!
I've stated many times in the past that I am
firmly opposed to adding a goto statement.
You'd have to pay me a million dollars.
(real U.S. dollars, not 62 cent Canadian dollars)
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
Well there you go Kat, your your NEVER going to get a goto statement from RDS,
unless ofcourse you were willing to pay a huge sum of money for it. If you want
it so bad, but rather not use a slow modified interpreter, "goto" another
language that has it (like me: Java, C#, PB).
Your 224 messages spanning 6 years pestering Robert for the goto statement and
labels, has NOT and NEVER will change his strong opposition against them, period.
Regards,
Vincent
