I'll second that sentiment. At first I liked the idea of the RETURN TO and used it. I got bit bad by the fact that this routine was called from another routine, which means that RETURNing TO the mainline left a return jump address on the stack ... which meant that the mainline RETURN did *not* return to the calling program!
RETURN TO is an inherently flawed concept. The only way to *ensure* the stack is unwound correctly is to *always* RETURN from internal subs and reroute after the GOSUB based on something set from within the sub. -Keith ----Original Message---- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Taylor Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 6:41 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [U2] more serious notes on GOTO > Ross, > > Please tell me you are kidding. RETURN TO is worse than using a GOTO. > You think you are dealing with a nice neat subroutine and then the > 'hidden' goto in the return bites you. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-u2- >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ross Ferris >> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 8:42 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [U2] more serious notes on GOTO >> >> Personally I prefer the RETURN TO syntax - all the 'elegance' of >> subroutines, with the bonus of conditional exits. Now THAT was a >> "nice innovation" in the language ------- u2-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
