Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #10271

Re: Thoughts on function

From Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c++
Subject Re: Thoughts on function
Date 2011-09-19 13:26 +0900
Message-ID <87aaa117ki.fsf@catnip.gol.com> (permalink)
References (4 earlier) <0d205a4f-b6d5-494e-baf1-b5add2798806@o9g2000vbo.googlegroups.com> <880af656-7aaf-4e4c-baa8-91ae77d541e4@f41g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <9dn6ekFr5dU8@mid.individual.net> <d5a55708-e02d-4409-8ee1-7c23573e0a51@c22g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> <857d77ha9jeomb1kbcti9psermtsh4e5j4@4ax.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> writes:
> Refactor your function, get rid of the goto's. They are bad practice. 

But let's be fair -- while goto is often[*] used badly, and in such
cases makes code harder to understand/maintain, it isn't somehow the
kiss of death.  There are reasonable uses of goto.

So although the presence of "goto" in code is a big warning sign
(especially in C++, where RIAA tends to supplant "goto for error
cleanup" idioms), is seems unreasonable to thus grade code a "1"
without actually looking at the details of how its used.

[*] maybe less so these days than in the past, as it's acquired such a
huge negative reputation that non-clueful programmers are likely to
avoid it entirely on that basis.

-Miles

-- 
Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious.

Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Thoughts on function Ebenezer <woodbrian77@gmail.com> - 2011-09-14 22:01 -0700
  Re: Thoughts on function Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-15 17:08 +1200
    Re: Thoughts on function Ebenezer <woodbrian77@gmail.com> - 2011-09-15 07:34 -0700
      Re: Thoughts on function Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-16 07:38 +1200
        Re: Thoughts on function Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-09-15 20:40 +0100
        Re: Thoughts on function Ebenezer <woodbrian77@gmail.com> - 2011-09-15 17:23 -0700
          Re: Thoughts on function Ebenezer <woodbrian77@gmail.com> - 2011-09-18 13:30 -0700
            Re: Thoughts on function Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-19 09:34 +1200
              Re: Thoughts on function Ebenezer <woodbrian77@gmail.com> - 2011-09-18 18:25 -0700
                Re: Thoughts on function Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-09-18 19:08 -0700
                Re: Thoughts on function Ebenezer <woodbrian77@gmail.com> - 2011-09-18 19:46 -0700
                Re: Thoughts on function Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-09-18 20:12 -0700
                Re: Thoughts on function Ebenezer <woodbrian77@gmail.com> - 2011-09-18 21:28 -0700
                Re: Thoughts on function Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-09-19 13:26 +0900
                Re: Thoughts on function Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-19 16:45 +1200
                Re: Thoughts on function Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-09-19 15:19 +0900
                Re: Thoughts on function Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-19 16:43 +1200
                Re: Thoughts on function Ebenezer <woodbrian77@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 11:16 -0700
                Re: Thoughts on function Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 07:44 +1200
                Re: Thoughts on function Ebenezer <woodbrian77@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 18:03 -0700
                Re: Thoughts on function Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 13:15 +1200
                Re: Thoughts on function Ebenezer <woodbrian77@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 18:27 -0700
  Re: Thoughts on function Fulvio Esposito <esposito.fulvio@gmail.com> - 2011-09-16 02:19 -0700
    Re: Thoughts on function Ebenezer <woodbrian77@gmail.com> - 2011-09-16 11:20 -0700
      Re: Thoughts on function Fulvio Esposito <esposito.fulvio@gmail.com> - 2011-09-16 13:51 -0700
  Re: Thoughts on function hanukas <jukka@liimatta.org> - 2011-09-19 06:19 -0700

csiph-web