OpenEuphoria

Re: Good Use of GOTO

• Posted by Jim Brown <jbrown105 at linu?buddhi?t.net> Jun 06, 2008
• 848 views

c.k.lester wrote:
> 
> 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?

I did not hear this. Nor do I understand why this would be the case. Especially
if the translation could be done without losing goto. Please explain.

> > 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.

No, the current solution was chosen because the lack of a native goto made a
native port impossible. A native port would have been superior, if it could be
accomplished.