Re: 3.0 feature request: foreac
On 22 Jul 2005, at 15:14, Vincent wrote:
>
>
> posted by: Vincent <darkvincentdude at yahoo.com>
>
> 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.
Now tell me something i don't know. I AM using OOEU and Bliss/Bach.
Kat
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
