OpenEuphoria

Re: voting on GOTO

• Posted by Jim Brown <jbrown105 at linuxbu?dhist.?et> Jun 05, 2008
• 786 views

Chris Bensler wrote:
> 
> Jim Brown wrote:
> > 
> > Chris Bensler wrote:
> > > 
> > > Going back to the discussion of goto. As I said before, I'm not really for
> > > or
> > > against it. I voted no because nobody has been able to show a legitimate
> > > need
> > > for it and because it's always easier to add it later than to take it out
> > > when/if
> > > it's regretted. I'm just not about to say yes, toss it in there, because
> > > some
> > > people say 'why not!?'.
> > 
> > goto is more or less a requirement to be able to port PCRE.
> 
> Is it more or less? Can you elaborate a bit on why goto is needed? Maybe you
> can convince more than just myself.

I didn't try to do the port myself, so I don't know.

PCRE uses goto quite heavily (as you can tell for yourself by doing a grep on
the source code). Although it is certainly possible to rewrite those uses of goto
to use state machine flags and whatnot, the burden of doing so is considerable
and doesn't have any clear benefit.

> 
> > > 
> > > Why is goto even being considered at this timeanyways, if there is no real
> > > need
> > > for it? We should be trying to fill in gaps in the language, not put
> > > sprinkles
> > > on the cake
> > >  
> > 
> > The code exists and is ready to be added. The elease of 4.0 has been delayed
> > enough, some of these things may have to wait until 4.1.
> 
> If I make you a poop-pie, does that mean you should be obligated to eat it?
> 

Which is why it is being discussed now, instead of having been committed two
weeks ago.

> 
> Chris Bensler
> Code is Alchemy