Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | From | Randy Dunlap <> | Date | Sun, 12 Jan 2003 16:38:52 -0800 (PST) | Subject | Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*? |
| |
> On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 14:38, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> I think goto's are fine > > You're a relatively succesful guy, so I guess I shouldn't argue with your > style.
Good. (although I don't know why I'm replying as this thread is way overdone....:)
> However, I have always been taught, and have always believed that > "goto"s are inherently evil. They are the creators of spaghetti code (you > start reading through the code to understand it (months or years after its > written), and suddenly you jump to somewhere totally > unrelated, and then jump somewhere else backwards, and it all gets ugly > quickly). This makes later debugging of code total hell. > > Would it be so terrible for you to change the code you had there to _not_ > use a goto and instead use something similar to what I suggested? Never > mind the philosophical arguments, I'm just talking good coding style for a > relatively small piece of code. > > If you want, but comments in your code to meaningfully describe what's or put > happening instead of goto labels. > > In general, if you can structure your code properly, you should never need a > goto, and if you don't need a goto you shouldn't use it. It's just "common > sense" as I've always been taught. Unless you're > intentionally trying to write code that's harder for others to read.
There are goto-less languages, even Algol-like ones. And OSes can be written in them. Well, they just have different names for JUMP.
~Randy
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |