OpenEuphoria

Re: Replacing GOTO. [was Re: Conceptual problem solved by GOTO]

• Posted by CChris <christian.cuvier at agriculture.go??.fr> Jun 11, 2008
• 762 views

Shawn Pringle wrote:
> 
> CChris wrote:
> > 
> > Chris Bensler wrote:
> > > 
> > > Why do we need any constructs if we could do the same thing with goto?
> > > Goto is low-level, it should not be a replacement for higher level
> > > constructs
> > > which provide structure.
> > > 
> > > Chris Bensler
> > > Code is Alchemy
> > 
> > Your post is an oxymoron.
> > Since goto is low level, and since its use is better confined to to when
> > higher,
> > more maintainable constructs fail to do the jo in some way, then it has to
> > coexist
> > with them. Makes sense?
> > 
> > CChris
> 
> You should re-read his post.  We are not talking about getting rid of goto but
> using new constructs that can be used inplace of goto when the flow is
> forward.
>  
> 
> Shawn Pringle

Me too. Ly point is that highrt lrvrl constructs must be there _because_ goto is
so liw level.

CChris