Alberto Fasso' wrote:
> I am a bit astonished to see you pople talking about it seriously.
Well, it seemed funny to me at first, but has led to some interesting
thoughts as follows (regarding F):
1. The discussion some months ago had some pretty good arguments
for the goto statement. Even though I still hate to clutter
F with it, enough people seem to think it is important, so we
have decided to add it. [Note: I was reading a Java book in
which the author said there were two main reasons to have a
goto: exit a loop and handle an exception, so Java put both
of these in as constructs, hence (his "hence") no need for the
go to. Of course, Fortran and F don't have the exception
handling. And I still think something like the Zahn construct
would be really nice--thanks to Loren for reminding us of that;
I think that Loren's example would have the same difficulties
in Java, but haven't thought much about that.]
2. In the spirit of F, we put in the minimal goto, with only the
continue as the target statement. I was a little worried
about this decision until the two excellent postings provided
that rationale better than I could.
3. So we are back where we started with Van's suggestion: given
that F has a goto and only to a continue, would it be useful
to have the "come from" information available, either required
of the programmer or generated by a tool? It seems to me to be
a serious suggestion.
> How do you plan to handle different GOTOs pointing to the same
> CONTINUE?
I don't understand the concern. What is there to handle?
Walt Brainerd [log in to unmask]
Unicomp, Inc. +1-520-298-7212 298-7074 (fax)
7660 E. Broadway, Suite 308 888-330-6060
Tucson, AZ 85710 USA http://www.uni-comp.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
