Brad Roberts wrote:
Robert Fraser wrote:
Which looks even worse. IMO, this is the perfect place for goto -- small
function, used only for an exit condition. There's no "spaghetti code"
here at all. I know goto used to be abused back in the day, but it has
its place.
Oh, I agree. I didn't say that in my response because he specifically
asked for other ways to write it. In this case, I see no reason to
change it. That said, it can be nearly as clean without the goto for
those that are religious about it.
Yah, same here. I seem to finally have found one of the elusive cases
when goto simplifies things.
About Brad's variant - ranges don't define clear, but assigning b =
b.init does the trick. (I personally still find the goto version
marginally clearer. It's also marginally more efficient because it
doesn't do one assignment and one vacuous check. Also the joke with the
programmer who throws the water and then applies the known procedure to
make coffee comes to mind.)
Andrei
