🚀 go-pugleaf

Christopher R. Volpe (volpe@bart.crd.ge.com) wrote:
: In article <4258ak$cj7@news0.rain.rg.net>, Paul Long <plong@perf.com> writes:
: >volpe@bart.crd.ge.com (Christopher R. Volpe) wrote:
: >>In article <41t0sb$15e@news0.rain.rg.net>, Paul Long <plong@perf.com> writes:
: >[snip]
: >
: >I mean the readability problem that Steve McConnell describes in _Code
: >Complete_: "It's harder to understand a routine if, reading it at the bottom,
: >you're unaware of the possibility that it returned somewhere above."

: With all due respect to Mr. McConnell, I don't read code from the bottom up.

: >Maybe you misunderstood me. I am _not_ proposing that gotos are a reasonable
: >alternative to multiple return statements. Both are bad and avoidable.

: Ah... Ok. So you prefer the umpteen-levels-of-if-statement-nesting method?

Well, you shouldn't really have to use either; if you are nesting too
deep, then that can be as hard to read as a goto.

I really didn't understand the goto considered harmful debate - how
could you program without gotos?  In assembler, I used them all the
time.  But without any real effort to avoid them, I suppose I've used
a couple of gotos in C in the last ten years.  I avoid multiple
returns as well, except as an immediate abort at the top of a routine.

Will
cwr@crash.cts.com