Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Small Device C Compiler 3.6.0 released Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:52:59 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 36 Message-ID: References: <874m8x2b3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87y46825no.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87pork1zyk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87mvmoymg9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87eg7zzv7e.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87inxay7xp.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <3c9dee3b-2fff-4b07-bf50-613a2d6746a7@googlegroups.com> <87twguw62m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <521cd673-dbc7-40e0-9725-3cae91ebb97a@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="945944de09706c9b4e29b53c9d2efdc2"; logging-data="26523"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Q6H4VVjN84ycNtG6waTPT" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:xhsmcexyyriyLEKpA8MdC4/Ukw0= sha1:EdaVS8kJlTpG29rjW258oYFopNA= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:89291 Malcolm McLean writes: > On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 10:24:16 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: [...] >> On re-reading Malcolm's description, I see it says nothing about the >> internals of a function except that it has one point of entry and one >> point of exit. So a program in which each function is a tangled mass of >> goto statements would be "structured" under Malcolm's definition. >> > Yes it would. > Except the functions are meant to be quite short, the "balanced tree" > requirement. So the functions can only be a small tangled mess. > > I was talking mainly about structured programming and recursion, > however. The Wiki article is mostly about the historical development > of the idea and whilst it's worth reading, it doesn't give you > a good sense of what is "structured programming" versus other > paradigms. So once again, you take an existing term with an accepted meaning and apply your own inconsistent meaning to it. Presumably your usage is Right and everyone else's is Wrong. Code in which functions (however small) consist of tangled messes of gotos does not qualify as "structured programming". (Knuth has argued that limited use of gotos is consistent with structured programming, but we're specifically talking about a "tangled mess of goto statements".) Let's call it "Malcolm-structured-programming", and the rest of us can ignore it and move on. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc. "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this." -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"