Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bart <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: transpiling to low level C
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 16:17:37 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <vjs871$1q22j$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vjlh19$8j4k$1@dont-email.me>
 <vjn9g5$n0vl$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <vjnhsq$oh1f$1@dont-email.me> <vjnq5s$pubt$1@dont-email.me>
 <vjpn29$17jub$1@dont-email.me> <vjps0l$18hon$1@dont-email.me>
 <vjq36r$19sis$1@dont-email.me> <vjqcut$1bld5$1@dont-email.me>
 <877c7z85t2.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 17:17:37 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5300244e42b5123d47a75c920a0bca9f";
	logging-data="1902675"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18hLnIOhJ4ppyxpoSYuHdz5"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ncoB1GoxCo+zslhz9zSLbezSjZ4=
In-Reply-To: <877c7z85t2.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 2936

On 17/12/2024 01:19, Keith Thompson wrote:
> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> [SNIP]
>> In that case I've no idea what you were trying to say.
>>
>> When somebody says that 'goto' can emulate any control structure, then
>> clearly some of them need to be conditional; that is implied.
>>
>> Your reply suggested they you can do away with 'goto', and use
>> recursive functions, in a scenario where no other control structures
>> need exist.
>>
>> OK, if this is not for an IL, then it's not a language I would care
>> for either. Why tie one hand behind your back for no good reason?
> 
> I read Janis's post.  I saw a suggestion that certain constructs are
> *theoretically* unnecessary.  I saw no suggestion of any advocacy for
> such an approach.
> 
> """
> A 'goto' may be used but it isn't strictly *necessary*. What *is*
> necessary, though, that is an 'if' (some conditional branch), and
> either 'goto' or recursive functions.
> """

This doesn't actually make much sense. So 'goto' is necessary, but 
'goto' *is*?

If you try to extract any meaning, it is that any control flow can be 
expressed either with 'goto' or with 'recursive functions'.

This is what I picked up on. Who on earth would eschew 'goto' and use 
such a disproportionately more complex and inefficient method like 
recursive functions?

How would you even express an arbitrary goto from random point X in a 
function to random point Y, which may be inside differently nested 
blocks, via a recursive function?

If this is suppposed to be theoretically possible, then neither do you 
need a compiler OR a computer to run any program! Pencil and paper will 
work.