Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: goto considered helpful (Was: question about linker)
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 13:52:13 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <aqpamjh4h4kmu34ilbe5bnsiq4o7llso06@4ax.com>
References: <vj1bss$325uo$1@dont-email.me> <vj1h4i$335q1$2@dont-email.me> <vj1mhi$34p7h$1@dont-email.me> <vj1prj$35je4$1@dont-email.me> <vj7dup$he7i$1@dont-email.me> <vjasuj$17uod$1@dont-email.me> <vjc87h$1apid$1@paganini.bofh.team> <vjcbe1$1jns0$1@dont-email.me> <87wmg5x4b1.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vjd96b$1pbed$1@dont-email.me> <87jzc5wx3s.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vjdde8$1q2to$2@dont-email.me> <87frmtwuzq.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <20241212144454.00003b83@yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 13:52:15 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="860495294ab98ece24942a66f97a9584";
	logging-data="3635817"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/e07jzDqTworT6UURz7QhUfRBHGLmmW8M="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4WbXxrvIr+EAWAPgZKsRXnm0LN4=
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
Bytes: 2938

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 14:44:54 +0200, Michael S  wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 17:27:53 -0800
>Keith Thompson > wrote:
>
>> bart > writes:
>> [...]
>> > My experience of multi-level break is that there are two main
>> > use-cases:
>> >
>> >  * Used in the current loop only (not necessarily the innermost to
>> > an observer). This is the most common
>> >
>> >  * Used to exit the outermost loop
>> >
>> > So to support these, named or even numbered loops are not
>> > necessary. (Eg. I use 'exit' or 'exit all'.)  
>> 
>> I would oppose a change to C that only applied to innermost and
>> outermost loops.  For one thing, I'm not aware of any other language
>> that does this (except perhaps your unnamed one).  For another,
>> it's easy enough to define a feature that handles any arbitrary
>> nesting levels, by applying names (labels) to loops.
>>
>
>The better solution is education.
>Convince teachers in unis and colleges that goto is *not* considered
>harmful for this particular use case. Convince them to teach that 

goto is not harmful in every case, if the people that write it, indent
that goto significally and have clear in mind and in the text, what
that goto has to do

>attempts to avoid goto [for this particular use case] are really
>considered harmful. If you don't believe in authority of yourself then
>ask for help from somebody famous that share this view. I would guess
>that nearly all famous C programmers share it.