in reply to
Re: Re: Re: (tye)Re: GOTO considered (a necessary) evil?
in thread GOTO considered (a necessary) evil?
I didn't misunderstand. I was just not clear enough.
I meant that to be a resource you can use in discussions with people whose understanding of structured programming is more religious than practical.
As for goto, very few are "necessary", and experience says that so-called necessary gotos generally have a better replacement. Furthermore the ability to combine loop control and named loops removes the vast majority of goto statements - including every one that Knuth pointed to in his rebuttal as being useful for algorithmic efficiency. So while I might agree that necessary gotos are OK, I likely mean something different by that than you do.