Subject:
|
Re: Encoding? (was Re: This isn't good enough!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Jul 2000 15:18:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
608 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, DaveG wrote:
> 10 REM Why GOTO is a bad idea
> 11 REM you find code like this...
> 30 FOR N = 1 TO 3
> 40 GOTO 100*N
> 50 NEXT N
> 55 END
> 60 REM Oh, so smart he cut himself
> 100 ? "One"
> 110 GOTO 50
> 200 ? "TWO"
> 210 GOTO 50
> 300 ? "Three"
> 310 GOTO 50
> 999 REM Best DaveG
Yikes! That's not the JMP that's bad, it's the target calculation! That's
what ON <expr> GOTO <label>, <label>, ... was created for!
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Encoding? (was Re: This isn't good enough!
|
| (...) [snip] (...) It's not what it was created for It's WHY it was created. Yes to make a bad practice part of the language, ROTFHMGUATI*. But more to the point adding ON to the debate is hardly going to advance GOTO's position as most hated (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Encoding? (was Re: This isn't good enough!
|
| (...) 10 REM Why GOTO is a bad idea 11 REM you find code like this... 30 FOR N = 1 TO 3 40 GOTO 100*N 50 NEXT N 55 END 60 REM Oh, so smart he cut himself 100 ? "One" 110 GOTO 50 200 ? "TWO" 210 GOTO 50 300 ? "Three" 310 GOTO 50 999 REM Best DaveG (24 years ago, 12-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
