I'm not sure if limited "goto" should be really considered harmful.
Dijkstra has written his essay on unlimited goto, that could jump from
any point in code to any other point in code.
I don't see reason why limited "goto" that is semantically equivalent
(or little more powerful) to
x: do {
continue x;
} while(false);should be considered harmful (anyway - it's useful almost only for implementing state machines). 2015-05-22 4:14 GMT+02:00 Bob Myers <[email protected]>: > Sorry, I forgot the smiley on my post. > Bob > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >> From: Brendan Eich <[email protected]> >> To: Bob Myers <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected] >> Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 16:45:38 -0700 >> Subject: Re: Label statement moveable >> Bob Myers wrote: >>> >>> Can we also get goto statements? >> >> >> No, although an out-of-shipping-date Opera engine supported them. >> >>> Also, if we going to do gotos, then please implement computed GOTO. >>> FORTRAN has had that already for like 50 years. >> >> >> Sorry, JS is not Fortran. Goto considered harmful, Dijkstra said -- plus >> naive Java verifier complexity is O(n^4) without extra stack/typemaps, due >> to goto. >> >> G-O-T-O in JS is spelled "Proper Tail Calls" and is in ES6. >> >> /be > > > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
