OpenEuphoria

Re: Good Use of GOTO

• Posted by c.k.lester <euphoric at ?klester?com> Jun 06, 2008
• 865 views

Matt Lewis wrote:
> c.k.lester wrote:
> > And why, if PCRE is going to be merged into the interpreter (I might not
> > have
> > that idea correct), then why the Euphoria language would need a GOTO.
> I was the one who initially brought this up.  A year or two ago, I started
> working on porting PCRE to euphoria.  I had to do some really ugly things
> to work around the use of goto.  Obviously, no one is going to try to port
> PCRE when it's already a part of euphoria.

Okay, thanks for speaking up Matt. Now, if Euphoria had GOTO, you could
have ported PCRE, but from what I've heard that implementation would have
been drastically slower than merging PCRE into the interpreter. Isn't that
true?

> It was meant as an example where the lack of goto made it difficult to
> impossible to get something done.

But wasn't the current solution found to be superior? Putting the C code
directly into the interpreter for an extra 150K seemed to be the best way
and, thus, was chosen.