|
In high level languages... Ok, maybe you have more possibilities and you should avoid using goto's
But try to programm in Assembly, in PLC LAD or other similar "low" level languages without it.
It is like many other things. Use it wisely and there would be no problems. Abuse or misuse it... and you will burn in hell (or you will be damned and sent to hell by the people who inherit your code)
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
while ( true ) { ... break ... }
|
|
|
|
|
also
for (;;) { break; }
do { break; } while(0);
that's just pretending. everyone knows that break is a goto. own it!
|
|
|
|
|
I think you should use a
#define ever ;;
so that you can program
for (ever) {...}
Or,
#define WW3
do {...} while (!WW3);
|
|
|
|
|
Everytime, I thought I needed a goto, I found I could just put a return inthe middle of a loop.
That's a more better way to make things sucky.
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
Gotos are fine. Like, "I will be back in 30 minutes. I have to GOTO the store."
I have to GOTO the baseball game.
 
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: I have to GOTO the store
Except that's really a function call - you do intend to RETURN from the grocery store, don't you?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Create a workflow manager using generics, interfaces, class abstraction, enums for state and continuation.
2. Break up your code into small workflow steps.
3. On each step, check for termination.
4. Or to get really fancy, return a code that says what step in the workflow to skip to.
5. If you really want to be cool, allow for async workflow steps!
Latest Article - A 4-Stack rPI Cluster with WiFi-Ethernet Bridging
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
When can I read the article ?
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
 
Nuke the location in which the GOTO was used, sow the glass crater with salt, and plow it in. Then scatter biological and chemical agents all around the area, making it inaccessible for 10,000 years!
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
It4 seems to me that in a language with no local functions or lacking in structured error handling, gotos have a useful place. A limited place, but a place all the same.
|
|
|
|
|
I use goto all the time.
Every loop and conditional expression you use calls it to their hearts' content; there's no avoiding it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
<snicker> I started coding in SuperBase, GOTO and GOSUB were standard and recommended constructs. Transitioning to VB in the 90's was no benefit. It was only when I started using c# that I abandoned them completely.
Some of us have shameful pasts.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
These days the "goto" is back, I find this very unfortunate.
Every time someone writes a RETURN or a BREAK statement, he/she is actually writing a GOTO
And the worse thing about it is that this is encouraged these days...
|
|
|
|
|
he's back, and he's angry! 
however I do believe that while do jump the code pointer, they are their own assembly instruction!
|
|
|
|
|
The GOTO statement used to be pure evil. In BASIC it used to go to a line number. Not very easy to understand what it is intended to be doing at the best of times. Add in the fact that you could renumber every line in the program with the RENUMBER command and the GOTO statements would not update to reflect the line number changes and you have GOTO hell. (Not to mention that a lot of versions of BASIC at the time had missing features, for example procedures, functions, while loops, repeat loops.)
These days with the GOTO statement going to a label it has had it's teeth filed and, while not a common feature is nothing to be afraid of.
|
|
|
|
|
What language?
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
|
Code sample would be nice. Because honestly, with the amount of control structures and object orientation support it provides I don't see a reason to use it. In fact. I work with C# since I was 24 years old (I am 36 now). Never had to use goto since (except from a few side projects in C).
I used moro goto on imperative/structured/procedural languages like C, C++ and BASIC. So on purely objected oriented programming, whenever I thought of goto, it flashed a yellow light to me indicating I probably got some design patterns wrong. After some time I never got that yellow light again.
I am not saying your use is not justified, I just can't wrap my head around a reason to use it.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't use goto in the end.. had to write a public static function and used it instead....
|
|
|
|
|
I much prefer "goto case something;" to "", i.e. a silent fallthrough.
|
|
|
|
|
See my signature.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
|
|
|
|
|
Use of GOTO is not always bad, nor a sign of poor design. Have a look at the Linux kernel source code sometime. You will see it littered with GOTOs everywhere. GOTO is an elemental part of their error-handling paradigm, they use it in a defined and regular way. The Linux kernel is not the only major and highly regarded software project to use this method, either, it just may be the most prominent.
But that said, a colleague of mine tried to employ the same paradigm to some of our own in-house code, and upper management pitched a hellacious fit when they got wind of somebody trying use GOTOs. A group of developers (very good ones) mounted a defense of it, but it was no use. Everybody flatly over-ruled, everybody shamed for having the thought.
|
|
|
|
|
static STATUS Android_PrepareAudioBuffers(void) {
STATUS errCode;
SLresult result;
_slBufferQueueItf = NULL;
result = (*_slRecorderInstance)->GetInterface(_slRecorderInstance, SL_IID_ANDROIDSIMPLEBUFFERQUEUE,
&_slBufferQueueItf);
if( result != SL_RESULT_SUCCESS ) {
LOGE("%s - Error calling _slRecorderInstance->GetInterface(SL_IID_ANDROIDSIMPLEBUFFERQUEUE)", __func__);
errCode = S_ERR_OPENSLES_GET_INTERFACE;
goto fail_point;
}
result = (*_slBufferQueueItf)->RegisterCallback(_slBufferQueueItf, Android_RecordCallback, NULL);
if( result != SL_RESULT_SUCCESS ) {
LOGE("%s - Error calling _slBufferQueueItf->RegisterCallback()", __func__);
errCode = S_ERR_OPENSLES_REGISTER_CALLBACK;
goto fail_point;
}
(*_slRecorderItf)->SetCallbackEventsMask(_slRecorderItf, SL_RECORDEVENT_BUFFER_FULL);
_activeBuffIdx = 0;
int i;
for( i = 0; i < RECORD_BUFFER_COUNT; i++ ) {
result = (*_slBufferQueueItf)->Enqueue(_slBufferQueueItf, _buffers[i], _buffSz);
if( result != SL_RESULT_SUCCESS ) {
LOGE("%s - Error calling_slBufferQueueItf->Enqueue()", __func__);
errCode = S_ERR_OPENSLES_ENQUEUE_BUFF;
goto fail_point;
}
}
return S_OK;
fail_point:
if( _slBufferQueueItf ) {
(*_slBufferQueueItf)->RegisterCallback(_slBufferQueueItf, NULL, NULL);
(*_slBufferQueueItf)->Clear(_slBufferQueueItf);
_slBufferQueueItf = NULL;
}
return errCode;
}
modified 21-Jun-19 11:29am.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
