Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #10274
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: Thoughts on function |
| Date | 2011-09-19 16:45 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <9dnvmmFr5dU14@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <880af656-7aaf-4e4c-baa8-91ae77d541e4@f41g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <9dn6ekFr5dU8@mid.individual.net> <d5a55708-e02d-4409-8ee1-7c23573e0a51@c22g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> <857d77ha9jeomb1kbcti9psermtsh4e5j4@4ax.com> <87aaa117ki.fsf@catnip.gol.com> |
On 09/19/11 04:26 PM, Miles Bader wrote: > 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. Every coding standard I've written or had to follow has prohibited goto except in exceptional (and well commented) cases. -- Ian Collins
Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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