Naww, I think the idea behind still using them (if it cannot be avoided)
would
be to break out of some poorly designed loop-nest so one does not have to
place in 50 lines of "catch-code".
Franco Gasperino
Cutting Edge Communications
509-444-INET
awe@cet.com
> On Sun, 17 Aug 1997, Chris Jacobson wrote:
>
> -+What about labels/goto? Not sure if they are ANSI C tho...
>
> Uhm, please don't every say the "g"-word again. That is an offense
> punishable by the only fate worse than death...Yes, I know what you're
> thinking, "He wouldn't, would he?" I would, oh, yes, I would. I'm
> going to start taping all the folk music I can...be very, very cautious.
>
> Okay, aside from (failed?) humor, you actually should be shot if you
think
> labels/goto are an acceptable convention in C code. They are a horrible,
> terrible creation and really only exist for compatability with old code
> (but who wants to use code that has "goto" in it, anyway?)
>
> Anyway, there really is no difference between:
>
> goto do_pour_end;
>
> and
>
> return;
>
> except for fact that the "goto" will probably compile into more assembly
> instructions (should; but I can't say for certain).
>
>
> --
> Daniel Koepke -:- dkoepke@california.com -:- [Shadowlord/Nether]
> Think.
>
>
> +------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
> | http://democracy.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list-faq.html |
> +------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://democracy.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/08/00 PST