OMG a "Goto"
-
I like this reason as well void foobar() { // blah blah blah for(...) { // blablabla for(..) { // foo foo foo if(bar) goto end; } } end: // beep bop a loola }
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
You may throw an exception for that. :)
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
[My articles] -
I like this reason as well void foobar() { // blah blah blah for(...) { // blablabla for(..) { // foo foo foo if(bar) goto end; } } end: // beep bop a loola }
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
A simple 'break' would do the job, no need for 'goto'... :^) Regards Thomas
-
A simple 'break' would do the job, no need for 'goto'... :^) Regards Thomas
break will only break the inner most loop! C# is not java where you could have labelled loop...
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
-
You may throw an exception for that. :)
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
[My articles]That's a worse offense than a goto IMHO - exceptions should be reserved for exceptional conditions (the clues in the name) not used as an alternative control flow mechanism.
-
A simple 'break' would do the job, no need for 'goto'... :^) Regards Thomas
Thomas Weller wrote:
A simple 'break' would do the job, no need for 'goto'...
Except that a break doesn't break out of two for loops, just the inner one - necessitating a flag to detect whether the outer loop should be exited too. In C# this seems a legitimate usage to me. I just wish C# had JavaScript's labelled loops/breaks, yielding the following code style:
outer_loop:
while (true) {
// .. do something
inner_loop:
while (true) {
// ...
if (condition1)
break inner_loop;if (condition2) break outer\_loop; } }Given that and fall-through in switch..case I see no need for goto.
-
That's a worse offense than a goto IMHO - exceptions should be reserved for exceptional conditions (the clues in the name) not used as an alternative control flow mechanism.
Rob Grainger wrote:
not used as an alternative control flow mechanism.
That's exactly what they are (IMHO). :-D
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
[My articles] -
Thomas Weller wrote:
A simple 'break' would do the job, no need for 'goto'...
Except that a break doesn't break out of two for loops, just the inner one - necessitating a flag to detect whether the outer loop should be exited too. In C# this seems a legitimate usage to me. I just wish C# had JavaScript's labelled loops/breaks, yielding the following code style:
outer_loop:
while (true) {
// .. do something
inner_loop:
while (true) {
// ...
if (condition1)
break inner_loop;if (condition2) break outer\_loop; } }Given that and fall-through in switch..case I see no need for goto.
A 'labelled break' is a 'goto' alias. :)
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
[My articles] -
Thomas Weller wrote:
A simple 'break' would do the job, no need for 'goto'...
Except that a break doesn't break out of two for loops, just the inner one - necessitating a flag to detect whether the outer loop should be exited too. In C# this seems a legitimate usage to me. I just wish C# had JavaScript's labelled loops/breaks, yielding the following code style:
outer_loop:
while (true) {
// .. do something
inner_loop:
while (true) {
// ...
if (condition1)
break inner_loop;if (condition2) break outer\_loop; } }Given that and fall-through in switch..case I see no need for goto.
What I mean is: a 'break' would be enough to execute the 'beep bop a loola' :-D ... By the way: I'd consider a 'flag' much better than a 'goto'... Regards Thomas
-
break will only break the inner most loop! C# is not java where you could have labelled loop...
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
I know. But in the pseudocode above it will definitely execute the 'beep bop a loola'... :-D Regards Thomas
-
I like this reason as well void foobar() { // blah blah blah for(...) { // blablabla for(..) { // foo foo foo if(bar) goto end; } } end: // beep bop a loola }
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
Add
&& !footo the for loop conditions and/or use while instead. -
That's a worse offense than a goto IMHO - exceptions should be reserved for exceptional conditions (the clues in the name) not used as an alternative control flow mechanism.
I take exception to that remark! *Bypasses his finally block due to a goto statement*
-
protected void Page_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
string str = "Even exception occur again in catch block still finally block is Working";
try
{
throw new IndexOutOfRangeException();
}
catch
{
goto Hello;
throw new IndexOutOfRangeException();}
finally
{
Response.Redirect("Error.aspx?str="+ str);
}
Hello:
Response.Write("Finally Skiped!");
}http://www.codeproject.com/KB/aspnet/DotNetBulletQuestions.aspx?msg=2764693#xx2764693xx[^] A goto in a try/catch/finally block... urrrghh!
Maybe someone was just trying to test something and forgot to yank out the code? One can dream right....
-
protected void Page_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
string str = "Even exception occur again in catch block still finally block is Working";
try
{
throw new IndexOutOfRangeException();
}
catch
{
goto Hello;
throw new IndexOutOfRangeException();}
finally
{
Response.Redirect("Error.aspx?str="+ str);
}
Hello:
Response.Write("Finally Skiped!");
}http://www.codeproject.com/KB/aspnet/DotNetBulletQuestions.aspx?msg=2764693#xx2764693xx[^] A goto in a try/catch/finally block... urrrghh!
:wtf:
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon "Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
-
Maybe someone was just trying to test something and forgot to yank out the code? One can dream right....
(You need to follow the link.)
-
(You need to follow the link.)
Gotcha. ;D
-
Rob Grainger wrote:
not used as an alternative control flow mechanism.
That's exactly what they are (IMHO). :-D
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
[My articles]CPallini wrote:
That's exactly what they are (IMHO).
Guess so, but the operative bit to my eyes is "alternative". Exceptions are much heavier weight than loop variables etc. in terms of the execution model. Enclosing code in try/catch involves manipulation of the stack frame, tracking exception-handling blocks and other devilry. Personally, if a condition can be anticipated, I consider it better to manage using traditional control flow mechanisms.
-
What I mean is: a 'break' would be enough to execute the 'beep bop a loola' :-D ... By the way: I'd consider a 'flag' much better than a 'goto'... Regards Thomas
Thomas Weller wrote:
By the way: I'd consider a 'flag' much better than a 'goto'...
Personally, I don't like introducing variables to track these kinds of conditions, but I guess at these levels it really comes down to choice of programming style. Granted, though, that often the need to perform such trickery may often signal a deficiency that may better be addressed by refactoring.
-
CPallini wrote:
That's exactly what they are (IMHO).
Guess so, but the operative bit to my eyes is "alternative". Exceptions are much heavier weight than loop variables etc. in terms of the execution model. Enclosing code in try/catch involves manipulation of the stack frame, tracking exception-handling blocks and other devilry. Personally, if a condition can be anticipated, I consider it better to manage using traditional control flow mechanisms.
You're right and personally I won't use exceptions for that piece of code (I just made a not about the possibility). BTW I won't even write such a piece of code. :rolleyes:
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
[My articles] -
Thomas Weller wrote:
By the way: I'd consider a 'flag' much better than a 'goto'...
Personally, I don't like introducing variables to track these kinds of conditions, but I guess at these levels it really comes down to choice of programming style. Granted, though, that often the need to perform such trickery may often signal a deficiency that may better be addressed by refactoring.
Rob Grainger wrote:
often the need to perform such trickery may often signal a deficiency that may better be addressed by refactoring
I fully agree on that. The need to introduce variables (or a 'goto') for the mere sake of controlling execution flow to me is clearly what is called a 'code smell'.
Rob Grainger wrote:
I guess at these levels it really comes down to choice of programming style
Yup. The one way isn't really much better than the other... Regards Thomas
-
I like this reason as well void foobar() { // blah blah blah for(...) { // blablabla for(..) { // foo foo foo if(bar) goto end; } } end: // beep bop a loola }
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
Even Java has the "goto" similarity where you can "continue" to a label.