On error goto....
-
Why would one like to spoil the day and the bright cheerful morning by looking at a mourning sick and sluggish code like VB?
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
A pessimist sees only the dark side of the clouds, and mopes; a philosopher sees both sides, and shrugs; an optimist doesn't see the clouds at all - he's walking on them. --Leonard Louis LevinsonIt's not so much 'like' as 'have to'.
-
You know it's not going to be a good morning when you open up a legacy VB.net project and find hundreds of functions littered with ON ERROR GOTO's...
After all, it could also have been
ON ERROR RESUME NEXTWe are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
Bleh, goto X| At uni we had the true evil of the statement hammered into us on a C++ course, for every goto in our assignments you will lose 50% of the marks. :laugh:
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
Phannon wrote:
At uni we had the true evil of the statement hammered into us on a C++ course, for every goto in our assignments you will lose 50% of the marks.
Stupid ivory-tower taboos. A
gotostatement can be helpful. But you should never use it where a structured control statement would be more appropriate. For some interesting reading see Gotos Considered Harmful and Other Programmers' Taboos[^].DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991
-
After all, it could also have been
ON ERROR RESUME NEXTWe are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist:) very true. I shall be thankful for small mercies.
-
Bleh, goto X| At uni we had the true evil of the statement hammered into us on a C++ course, for every goto in our assignments you will lose 50% of the marks. :laugh:
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
use
goto,continueorbreak, you fail (break only allowed in switch statements.) use more then one exit in your function, you fail. and the prof was right... :)V.
Stop smoking so you can: Enjoy longer the money you save. Moviereview Archive -
Phannon wrote:
At uni we had the true evil of the statement hammered into us on a C++ course, for every goto in our assignments you will lose 50% of the marks.
Stupid ivory-tower taboos. A
gotostatement can be helpful. But you should never use it where a structured control statement would be more appropriate. For some interesting reading see Gotos Considered Harmful and Other Programmers' Taboos[^].DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991
I fully agree with you. :)
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke -
Phannon wrote:
At uni we had the true evil of the statement hammered into us on a C++ course, for every goto in our assignments you will lose 50% of the marks.
Stupid ivory-tower taboos. A
gotostatement can be helpful. But you should never use it where a structured control statement would be more appropriate. For some interesting reading see Gotos Considered Harmful and Other Programmers' Taboos[^].DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991
Mike Dimmick wrote:
Stupid ivory-tower taboos.
Yes, I agree, but On Error Resume Next should be punished by stoning to death with golf balls.
-
You know it's not going to be a good morning when you open up a legacy VB.net project and find hundreds of functions littered with ON ERROR GOTO's...
Paddy Boyd wrote:
Stupid ivory-tower taboos.
I almost worked on a POS, also littered with those, but with the added qualifications, such as
If Err.Number = nnn Then Resume NextTrying to find an error causing line was hell, because with Break on All Errors turned on, nearly every line caused an error, which was handled by code such as the above. Things like invalid array indexes, empty strings etc. that could all have been ignored with a proper code check, such asIf i > UpperBound Then DoNothing, but no, it was justWrite strData(i)and let the f****ing error handler see if the error was important. -
Mike Dimmick wrote:
Stupid ivory-tower taboos.
Yes, I agree, but On Error Resume Next should be punished by stoning to death with golf balls.
Agreed! On Error Resume Next, to me, always seems like saying "Eh. Who cares about what we're doing. The user should notice that half their data failed to get through our routine and fix it themselves..."
-
You know it's not going to be a good morning when you open up a legacy VB.net project and find hundreds of functions littered with ON ERROR GOTO's...
It's the only way of handling exceptions in VB6. VB6 also wouldn't give you a call stack so you basically had to do it yourself by putting On Error Goto in every function. Now, if it was ported to VB.NET and not translated to Try/Catch, then you have my sympathy. If it was written new in VB.NET, not a translation from VB6, then the programmer should be shotretrained.
DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991
-
It's the only way of handling exceptions in VB6. VB6 also wouldn't give you a call stack so you basically had to do it yourself by putting On Error Goto in every function. Now, if it was ported to VB.NET and not translated to Try/Catch, then you have my sympathy. If it was written new in VB.NET, not a translation from VB6, then the programmer should be shotretrained.
DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991
I know. And i believe, written from scratch...
-
Bleh, goto X| At uni we had the true evil of the statement hammered into us on a C++ course, for every goto in our assignments you will lose 50% of the marks. :laugh:
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
-
use
goto,continueorbreak, you fail (break only allowed in switch statements.) use more then one exit in your function, you fail. and the prof was right... :)V.
Stop smoking so you can: Enjoy longer the money you save. Moviereview ArchiveI often use continue. It greatly improves readability.
-
It's the only way of handling exceptions in VB6. VB6 also wouldn't give you a call stack so you basically had to do it yourself by putting On Error Goto in every function. Now, if it was ported to VB.NET and not translated to Try/Catch, then you have my sympathy. If it was written new in VB.NET, not a translation from VB6, then the programmer should be shotretrained.
DoEvents: Generating unexpected recursion since 1991
Mike Dimmick wrote:
Now, if it was ported to VB.NET and not translated to Try/Catch, then you have my sympathy.
Or if it was, but with every (now) method being neatly wrapped up in a 'try' 'catch (Exception ex)' 'throw new Exception("Error!", ex);'
-
Mike Dimmick wrote:
Stupid ivory-tower taboos.
Yes, I agree, but On Error Resume Next should be punished by stoning to death with golf balls.
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
Yes, I agree, but On Error Resume Next should be punished by stoning to death with golf balls.
True, but that should also apply to the try/catch/do-nothings.
codito ergo sum
Yes, even the try/catch/do-nothing-but-throw-again-and-break-the-call-stack.
-
use
goto,continueorbreak, you fail (break only allowed in switch statements.) use more then one exit in your function, you fail. and the prof was right... :)V.
Stop smoking so you can: Enjoy longer the money you save. Moviereview Archive -
Yes, even the try/catch/do-nothing-but-throw-again-and-break-the-call-stack.
I've seen way way too many of those in the short time that I've been working in C#. It's too late now, but it should have been the first thing taught to every VB developer making the transition. Even before they learned the syntax.
This blanket smells like ham
-
use
goto,continueorbreak, you fail (break only allowed in switch statements.) use more then one exit in your function, you fail. and the prof was right... :)V.
Stop smoking so you can: Enjoy longer the money you save. Moviereview ArchiveI use continue all the time, and if you have a function that doesn't support multiple return statements easily then your function is probably too complicated. Though, back in the C days it was hard to keep functions simple enough. My arbitrary flow control dogma would be if you have more then 2 nested if, while, switch or for statements you fail.
This blanket smells like ham
-
I use continue all the time, and if you have a function that doesn't support multiple return statements easily then your function is probably too complicated. Though, back in the C days it was hard to keep functions simple enough. My arbitrary flow control dogma would be if you have more then 2 nested if, while, switch or for statements you fail.
This blanket smells like ham
Andy Brummer wrote:
if you have a function that doesn't support multiple return statements easily then your function is probably too complicated
On the contrary, bugfixing with your function only having one return is more easy than when it has, let's say, 5 return statements. There's nothing more ugly then having something like this
if(something == true){
return;
}tastes differ I guess :-)
V.
Stop smoking so you can: Enjoy longer the money you save. Moviereview Archive