OpenEuphoria

RE: Kat's goto

• Posted by Rod Jackson <rodjackson_x at hotmail.com> Feb 08, 2002
• 659 views

void wrote:
> Please just add it, so people can decide for themselves.
> 
> In principle I'm against GOTO, but I agree sometimes it would make life 
> more
> simple. In rare instances it makes code more readable and efficient. If 
> it's
> implemented I will replace some ugly pieces in my coding too.

I... DO NOT... get this! Is it really so hard to see what's cropping up 
here?

First pass-by-reference, now GOTO, in a matter of days. What next, 
pointers? A built-in 'string' type? The ability to directly execute 
text? Pre-initialization of variables? Zero as a valid index subscript? 
When these fundamental changes are all implemented, for everyone, in the 
core language, should we rename the language, say, to IAHPLUSS 
(Inconsistent, Ad-Hocked Prog Lingo Using Sequences and Strings)? Sheesh 
indeed... I wonder if Python's creators have this problem:

"Add sequences. Euphoria has it, and I want it in Python."
"Add a built-in Picture type. 4D has it, and I want it in Python."
"Add the ability to rename built-in symbols. Forth has it, and I want it 
in Python."
"Add pointers. C has it, and I want it in Python."
"Add <pet feature>. <Alternative language> has it, and I want it in 
<language of choice>."

If you can't add it yourself (via source code or writing a library), why 
not just use a language that has what you need, if the need is so great? 
If it's not that necessary, why change the essense of the language 
(which a GOTO would *definitely* do) for everyone else by requesting the 
needed element be affixed to it???

Rod Jackson