Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder2.enfer-du-nord.net!news.panservice.it!feeder.news.tin.it!spool.news.tin.it!not-for-mail
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 18:55:14 +0100
From: Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Subject: Re: Programming D. E. Knuth in Python with the Deterministic Finite Automaton construct
References: <gR09r.22645$I33.16090@uutiset.elisa.fi>	<4f64a3a0$0$1386$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it>	<mailman.758.1331996530.3037.python-list@python.org> <4f64a9e5$0$1385$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it> <mailman.759.1331999612.3037.python-list@python.org>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.759.1331999612.3037.python-list@python.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 181
Message-ID: <4f64d00a$0$1390$4fafbaef@reader1.news.tin.it>
Organization: TIN.IT (http://www.tin.it)
X-Comments: Please send technical notifications to newsmaster@tin.it
NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.181.194.128
X-Trace: 1332006922 reader1.news.tin.it 1390 80.181.194.128:10765
X-Complaints-To: Please send abuse reports to abuse@retail.telecomitalia.it
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:21826

On 3/17/2012 16:53, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 03/17/2012 09:12 AM, Kiuhnm wrote:
>> On 3/17/2012 16:01, Michael Torrie wrote:
>>> On 03/17/2012 08:45 AM, Kiuhnm wrote:
>>>> Your way is easy, but the result is poor.
>>>
>>> In what way?
>>
>> The resulting code is inefficient, difficult to comprehend and to mantain.
>>
>>> What is your recommended way?
>>
>> One should rewrite the code. There is a reason why Python doesn't have
>> gotos.
> 
> We appear to have a language barrier here.  How should one rewrite the
> code?  Everyone knows python doesn't have gotos and state machines have
> to be created using other mechanisms like loops, state variables, and
> such.  Your suggestion to "rewrite the code" is unhelpful to the OP if
> you're not willing to suggest the best method for doing so.

Why should I write a treatise on decompilation techniques on this ng?

> Saying, "be
> like a decompiler" doesn't say anything.

That looks like a glaring contradiction to me...
I'm sure the interested reader will think of some ways of getting additional information on the subject.

Here's an example of rewriting:

A1. (Do the work of Phase A1.)  If <zap> then go to Phase A5,
otherwise continue.
A2. (Do some work.) If <zorp> go to Phase A4.
A3. (Some more work.)
A4. (Do something.)  If <condition ZZZ> go to Phase A1.
A5. (Something more).  If <foobar> then go to Phase A2, otherwise
end. 

==>

A1. (Do the work of Phase A1.)
If not <zap>:
    A2. (Do some work.) If <zorp> go to Phase A4.
    A3. (Some more work.)
    A4. (Do something.)  If <condition ZZZ> go to Phase A1.
A5. (Something more).  If <foobar> then go to Phase A2, otherwise
end. 

==>

A1. (Do the work of Phase A1.)
If not <zap>:
    A2. (Do some work.)
    If not <zorp>:
        A3. (Some more work.)
    A4. (Do something.)  If <condition ZZZ> go to Phase A1.
A5. (Something more).  If <foobar> then go to Phase A2, otherwise
end. 

==>

while (True):
    A1. (Do the work of Phase A1.)
    If not <zap>:
        A2. (Do some work.)
        If not <zorp>:
            A3. (Some more work.)
        A4. (Do something.)
        If not <condition ZZZ>:
            break
A5. (Something more).  If <foobar> then go to Phase A2

==>

while (True):
    A1. (Do the work of Phase A1.)
    If not <zap>:
        A2. (Do some work.)
        If not <zorp>:
            A3. (Some more work.)
        A4. (Do something.)
        If not <condition ZZZ>:
            A5. (Something more).
            If <foobar> then go to Phase A2
            break

==>

again = TRUE
while (again):
    A1. (Do the work of Phase A1.)
    If not <zap>:
        while (True):
            A2. (Do some work.)
            If not <zorp>:
                A3. (Some more work.)
            A4. (Do something.)
            If not <condition ZZZ>:
                A5. (Something more).
                If <foobar>:
                    continue
                again = FALSE; break

==>

def f:
    while (True):
        A1. (Do the work of Phase A1.)
        If not <zap>:
            while (True):
                A2. (Do some work.)
                If not <zorp>:
                    A3. (Some more work.)
                A4. (Do something.)
                If not <condition ZZZ>:
                    A5. (Something more).
                    If <foobar>:
                        continue
                    return

==>

def f:
    while (True):
        A1. (Do the work of Phase A1.)
        If <zap>:
            continue
        while (True):
            A2. (Do some work.)
            If not <zorp>:
                A3. (Some more work.)
            A4. (Do something.)
            If not <condition ZZZ>:
                A5. (Something more).
                If <foobar>:
                    continue
                return

==>

def f:
    while (True):
        A1. (Do the work of Phase A1.)
        If <zap>:
            continue
        while (True):
            A2. (Do some work.)
            If not <zorp>:
                A3. (Some more work.)
            A4. (Do something.)
            If <condition ZZZ>:
                continue
            A5. (Something more).
            If <foobar>:
                continue
            return

==>

def f:
    while (True):
        A1. (Do the work of Phase A1.)
        If <zap>:
            continue
        while (True):
            A2. (Do some work.)
            If not <zorp>:
                A3. (Some more work.)
            A4. (Do something.)
            If <condition ZZZ>:
                continue
            A5. (Something more).
            If not <foobar>:
                return

Etc... until you're satisfied with the result.

If the code is more complex, divide et impera.

Kiuhnm