M
Michele Dondi
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As I've said before, I've never seen it used and I've never used it,
so I didn't know that it still existed. If you structure your programs
appropriately, there will be no need for goto statements. That's what "sub"
is for.
I'm not contending this, nay: I *do* agree with you. Though perl
indeed has a C<goto>. Hence my cmt, period.
More precisely it is true that perl has some flavours of C<goto> in
disguise that blend nicely in the syntax of the language, but a "true"
C<goto> disregarding matters of wether it is considered harmful or
not, is first of all aesthetically unpleasant.
FWIW I did know it existed but have never felt the need of using it
but in one case in which it was the lightest solution to provide some
code with an "extra feature" it had not been thought for in the first
place. Can't even remember what it was about, but remember full well
that I did insert that line half-heartedly and almost feeling guilty!
;-)
Also, as I wrote in another post in this thread there's also a special
form of C<goto> that is useful in certain situations, especially in OO
programming.
Michele
--
No, no, it was programmed in Forth. See Genesis 1:12:It's because the universe was programmed in C++.
"And the earth brought Forth ..."
- Robert Israel on sci.math, thread "Why numbers?"