OpenEuphoria

Re: Good Use of GOTO

• Posted by c.k.lester <euphoric at ckle?ter.co?> Jun 06, 2008
• 833 views

Jeremy Cowgar wrote:
> c.k.lester wrote:
> > Yes I did. None of them were convincing arguments for adding GOTO to
> > Euphoria.
> Convincing to who? Others have already commented otherwise. Convincing to you?
> I'm not sure a 15,000% speed increase and 98% line count reduction would
> convince
> you.

Come on. Hyperbole? This isn't 'me' vs 'you' or 'us' vs 'them.' It's a
rational discussion on the merits of GOTO being added to the Euphoria
interpreter. Nobody's religion is in question here.

A 15,000% speed increase and 98% line count reduction would entice me, for
sure!

P.S. Not everybody was euphoric for GOTO in those links you provided. There
were many good arguments against GOTO.

> Easier than an include file? For instance, you had to do a code clean up in
> BBCMF due to include usage, and I'm not picking on you, it was just pretty
> easy
> to abuse.

Uh, no. There was no abuse. I modularized the code as Euphoria 3.x allowed.
When I switched to 4.0, there was a different mechanism and I had to adjust.
In fact, I wanted to adjust because it seems better packaged now.

> I think therefore we should go to a monolithic structure where all
> code is in one file.

I don't. :)