OpenEuphoria

Re: Conceptual problem solved by GOTO

• Posted by ken mortenson <kenneth_john at yah?o.?om> Jun 06, 2008
• 768 views

Derek Parnell wrote:
> 
> Andy Serpa wrote:
> > 
> >I do vote yes on "exit(x)" whereby x in an integer allowing you to break
> > out of x many nested loops, which avoids the use of flags, etc. 
> 
> Although v4.0 will not have "exit(x)" it does have "exit <label>" where
> <label>
> is the name given to a loop.

How I hate to mention this.  I really, really do hate to mention this.  But I
am compelled to for the sake of truth.  Here we are voting on GOTO and it's
already in.  It's not the name GOTO that makes it a goto.  You can call it 
banana if you want, it's having labels as targets.

So we aren't voting on GOTO; we're just calling it EXIT.

This explains my abstain vote to me.  I actually wondered why I didn't
vote no.  I guess it's just one of those things that you either get or
you don't.  Please don't take that as a shot at those that use GOTO, I
did for decades myself and understand why some might want to use it.

I guess I've just seen it abused way too often to ever use it myself.

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman