[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?
    > On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 14:59:57 EST, Rob Wilkens said:
    >> In general, if you can structure your code properly, you should never need
    >> a goto, and if you don't need a goto you shouldn't use it. It's just
    >> "common sense" as I've always been taught. Unless you're
    >> intentionally trying to write code that's harder for others to read.
    > Now, it's provable you never *NEED* a goto. On the other hand, *judicious*
    > use of goto can prevent code that is so cluttered with stuff of the form:
    > if(...) {
    > ...
    > die_flag = 1;
    > if (!die _flag) {...
    > Pretty soon, you have die_1_flag, die_2_flag, die_3_flag and so on, rather
    > than 3 or 4 "goto bail_now;".


    > The real problem is that C doesn't have a good multi-level "break"
    > construct. On the other hand, I don't know of any language that has a good
    > one - some allow "break 3;" to break 3 levels- but that's still bad because
    > you get screwed if somebody adds an 'if' clause....

    The one that I used in a previous life was like so. No "while"
    or "for" constructs, only "do thisloop forever" with conditionals
    all being explicitly coded inside the loop(s). All based on:
    do [loopname] [forever];
    end [loopname];

    with {block} possibly containing "undo [loopname]".
    An unnamed undo just terminates the innermost loop.
    Named undo's can be used to terminate any loop level.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.021 / U:33.580 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site