Article View: comp.std.c++
Article #986Re: protected != public-to-derived
From: Scott Layson Burson
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1991 08:44
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1991 08:44
18 lines
1349 bytes
1349 bytes
In article <264@heurikon.heurikon.com> daves@ex.heurikon.com (Dave Scidmore) writes: > Using the above rational I could say that GOTOs >are a good idea because anyone using good programming practices won't require >them. That's funny. I would agree with that argument, except I would change the word `require' to `abuse'. I have avoided `goto' for many years, but every so often I come across a situation -- admittedly, not too frequently -- where I have to admit I don't think I made the code any more readable by using a control variable rather than a `goto', and I really don't see any better way to write it in C. In Scheme I would use tail-recursive local functions, but the C community doesn't seem to believe in local functions (and hardly anyone believes in tail recursion). -- Scott Gyro@Reasoning.COM
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1991Mar27.084419.17959@kestrel.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uwm.edu!bionet!ucselx!petunia!kestrel.edu!gyroReferences:
<1991Mar24.205156.10206@world.std.com> <1991Mar25.183627.6041@kestrel.edu> <264@heurikon.heurikon.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uwm.edu!bionet!ucselx!petunia!kestrel.edu!gyro From: gyro@kestrel.edu (Scott Layson Burson) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: protected != public-to-derived Message-ID: <1991Mar27.084419.17959@kestrel.edu> Date: 27 Mar 91 08:44:19 GMT References: <1991Mar24.205156.10206@world.std.com> <1991Mar25.183627.6041@kestrel.edu> <264@heurikon.heurikon.com> Organization: Kestrel Institute, Palo Alto, CA Lines: 18