lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 03:18:38PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> 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.

longjump. Used with good effect in the plan9 code.

Probably takes more coordination than is possible in Linux and has marginal
benefit, but it looks nice.






--
---------------------------------------------------------
Victor Yodaiken
Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company.
www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com
1+ 505 838 9109

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.178 / U:2.980 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site