Re: The fate of Euphoria
On 9 Nov 2004, at 17:01, Patrick Barnes wrote:
>
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 23:50:18 -0600, Kat <gertie at visionsix.com> wrote:
> > A goto by any other name, but mine must spec unequivically and exactly
> > where it goes to, your continue and next will need to be altered if you add
> > significant code. You want a continue, break, next, exit, resume, hop, skip,
> > blah, blah, blah, but no goto??!!?? Goto can replace ALL those!
>
> That's why I suggested using labelled loops...
>
> Kat, I'm not campaigning for continued exclusion of the goto
> statement... I'm rather ambivalent about whether or not it's in the
> language.
>
> However, goto statements are considered 'inelegant' compared to
> high-level program flow statements, even though when you get down to
> it, they're all "jmp" in assembly code.
>
> Currently with Euphoria as it is (lacking some high-level program flow
> statements), there would be coding advantages to having a goto
> statement...
>
> However, what my question was (and still wasn't answered):
> Is there anything that can be done with GOTO, that can't be done with
> a full set of high-level program flow statements?
I am exhausted at the moment, and probably for another week, can't you
search the email records for it? Derek and me and others have submitted
good goto code for your amusement and demo.
Kat
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
