Re: New keyword added: continue
Derek Parnell wrote:
>
> CChris wrote:
>
> > If you supervise coders, you may ask them not to use it,
> > since you are the boss. Any remaining concern?
>
> Are you talking to me, Chris? If so, what are you talking about? I really
> haven't
> got a clue what trying to say to me.
>
> --
> Derek Parnell
> Melbourne, Australia
> Skype name: derek.j.parnell
You said: I'm concerned about having someday to maintain code that someone wrote
badly using goto.
Let's assume the oncern is not overplayed. Now how would that situation be
happening?
1/ Because the Eu interpreter or the standard lib uses goto. We mat reasonably
agree not to let this happen. After all, they are in the greater common
denominator of Eu, which dosn't include goto.
2/ Because someone you supervise is giving you such code. Then you are free to
set your coding rules, including not using goto.
3/ Because a supervisor hands you that job, and he accepted goto in code. But
then you were aware that it ould happen, right?
4/ Otherwise, you have hardly any obligation to maintain any code you didn't
write, so you can decide to not maintain if there's a goto.
Is that clearer?
So, you can always avoid maintaining the dreaded code, and your concerns will
remain theory, even with goto in the language, not actual.
CChris
Notes:
1/ I'm not actively pushing for goto, as it may be of scarce usefulness
with the new flow control statements in, and has serious pitfalls. However, I
see that most of the reasons put forward against it are quite wrong.
2/ Can someone point me to actual publicly released spaghetti code? It's
everyone's talk, but I have never seen any. Preferrably something less than 5
year old.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
