JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for COMP-FORTRAN-90 Archives


COMP-FORTRAN-90 Archives

COMP-FORTRAN-90 Archives


COMP-FORTRAN-90@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

COMP-FORTRAN-90 Home

COMP-FORTRAN-90 Home

COMP-FORTRAN-90  2005

COMP-FORTRAN-90 2005

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Computed GOTO

From:

James Giles <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Fortran 90 List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:46:25 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (54 lines)

Hargraves Gary wrote:
...
> However, am I wrong in suggesting that a 'computed go to' tests one variable
> or expression and then executes only one of the available clause options -
> depending on the outcome of that test (in a mutually exclusive option
> outcome) ?  (... a multiple test in the compiled code - I would hasten to
> point out.)
>
> If that is the case, then 'if then else' is the appropriate direct
> replacement ... if one were really being sought (for the reasons incorrectly
> speculated.  I fail to see how that structure it is greatly more clumsy or
> harder to maintain than computed go to - and is more likely to guarantee
> indented clauses.

I don't understand your point in this context.  SELECT/CASE is usually
considered the appropriate replacement.  IF-THEN-ELSE provides
at most two cases without additional testing (of the same or some other
variable or expression).  The problem in question had several cases
(I don't recall the total, but more than two).  So, IF-THEN-ELSE would
require additional work and additional code.

As to guaranteeing indented clauses, I think the more important goal is
to enhance legibility of the code.  If that can be accomplished with
properly indended control constructs, fine.  But indentation is not the
goal.  If it becomes merely a fetish, it's counterproductive.

Further, the issue was more complex in that some of the cases in the
example, after a small amount of work, became instances of some other
cases.   So there was shared code in a particular pattern.

> The subroutine thing was to take account of any commonality in the operations
> in each clause. OK, so a subroutine call is a resource overhead that you
> don't want so you repeat any code as necessary. This does not change the
> questions about 'computed go to'.

Well, it's overhead.  But it's also not necessarily as legible.  It's code
duplication (the CALL statement) and the code actually performed is
now no longer locally visible.  Elimination of the CALLs by inlining the
common code (the reverse direction of code development than is usually
discussed in this situation) still leaves code duplicated - and this time it's
maybe a substantial amount.  The computed-goto solution with "fall-through"
doesn't suffer any of these properties.  Whether it's better is a decision best
made by the programmer (which, in the particular case, is more legible and
easier to verify correctness and to subsequently maintain?)  I think computed-
goto remains a reasonable choice in this kind of situation.

--
J. Giles

"I conclude that there are two ways of constructing a software
design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously
no deficiencies and the other way is to make it so complicated
that there are no obvious deficiencies."   --  C. A. R. Hoare

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

December 2023
February 2023
November 2022
September 2022
February 2022
January 2022
June 2021
November 2020
September 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
December 2019
October 2019
September 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
April 2015
March 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
August 2014
July 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager