OpenEuphoria

Re: Euphoria features

• Posted by "Lucius L. Hilley III" <lhilley at CDC.NET> Nov 14, 1999
• 611 views

This goto request reminds me of some of BASIC's kludges.
INPUT A
on A goto 1, 2, 55, 312

I despise jumping around a program in such a disorderly fashion.
(IMO): if this were to be implemented into Euphoria, it would
greatly degrade the simplicity that everything is linear or
calling a function/procedure.  With GOTO, your second line of
code can be abort(0) yet still have a fully functioning program.
YUK.

Try this on for size.

GOTO Start
abort(0)--never used.

Start:
puts(1, "The above was easily bypassed and is useless.")

GOTO's are one of the strongest components of spaghetti code.
Without goto, creating spachetti code is more difficult.


        Lucius L. Hilley III
        lhilley at cdc.net   lucius at ComputerCafeUSA.com
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------+
| Hollow   | ICQ: 9638898 | AIM: LLHIII  | Computer |
|  Horse   +--------------+--------------+  Cafe'   |
| Software | http://www.cdc.net/~lhilley |  USA     |
+----------+-------+---------------------+----------+
                   | http://www.ComputerCafeUSA.com |
                   +--------------------------------+
----- Original Message -----
From: Kat <KSMiTH at PELL.NET>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 1999 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: Euphoria features


> ---------------------- Information from the mail
header -----------------------
> Sender:       Euphoria Programming for MS-DOS
<EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
> Poster:       Kat <KSMiTH at PELL.NET>
> Subject:      Re: Euphoria features
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Roderick Jackson <rjackson at CSIWEB.COM>
> To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
> Sent: Saturday, November 13, 1999 6:15 PM
> Subject: Re: Euphoria features
>
>
> > >(Back then "object" was the *only* type,
> > >for-loops didn't exist, ... the good old days!)
> >
> > !!!
> >
> > So there was NO type-checking at all? I'm shocked!
> > Well, frankly I think the introduction of types
> > (and the elegant implementation of user-defined
> > types) was a plus. I really can't see how you could
> > verify user input without it:
> >
> >    if (integer (x)) then
>
> Another language i use has *zero* type checking, other than internally in
> it's functions/procedures and binary vars (which i can use like
sequences),
> so if i want to know what is in a var, i use :
> if ( x isin %alphabet )
> if ( x !isin %numset )
> if ( x isin %punctset )
> or i pass it to a math function,, $round() will round off trailing
> non-numerals, for instance. You don't need types to write code. It's only
> occasionally handy in debugging when you have no control over what may be
in
> the variable you want to look at.
>
> > I won't even *touch* the lack of for-loops...
>
> I still want goto's. And i want to be able to goto a variable's contents
> too, as if it were a form of case statement.
>
> whatisthis {
> goto $1
> :apple return fruit
> :potato return vegetable
> }
> ( it returns $null if $1 is not a target )
>
> Kat,
> still looking for the ideal language.
>