Goto (Posting On Python-List Prohibited)

[Ben Bacarisse]

bartc <bc at freeuk.com> writes:

> On 30/12/2017 20:36, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> bartc <bc at freeuk.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 30/12/2017 16:53, mm0fmf wrote:
>>>> On 30/12/2017 14:41, bartc wrote:
>>>>> it looks a bit naff
>>>>
>>>> Understatement of 2017.
>>>
>>> I'm honest about my own ideas, but my remarks were about the use of
>>> special symbols such as "::" and "@".
>>>
>>> Before completely dismissing it however, you should look at how
>>> another language such as Python can achieve the same thing.
>>>
>>> Namely, take any block of code within a function, and allow it to be
>>> executed or shared from anywhere else in the function, with the
>>> minimum of disruption.
>>
>> That's what a local function does and it does it with the clean
>> semantics of a function call.
>>
>> When this idea came up in comp.lang.c you could not see the point, yet
>> you appear to have a use-case common enough that you have a solution
>> worked out using gotos.
>
> C doesn't in general have local functions. My own languages don't
> implement them properly. So I tend not to use them.

But now you have good reason to change that.  Properly implemented they
do exactly what you want very neatly.  You can stick with gotos, of
course, but at least I hope you won't pour scorn on the idea of local
function if it comes up again.

>>> If it looks better than what I'd come up with, then I'll use that instead.
>>
>> What looks better is always going to be an unreliable and subjective
>> measure, but calling a named function almost certainly scales better and
>> will allow for better structuring (such as when one block needs to use
>> another one).
>
> Using a local (or even non-local) function is what I'm trying to
> avoid, as I prefer to keep the code inline, and not disrupt it too
> much.

That's what used to be called hacking.  You write it one way and then
spot that that block over there can be used here, but you don't tidy up
the code, you just jump to it!  In general, it is exactly the sort of
goto use that gave gotos a bad name.  Anyway, by their very nature, the
blocks you are talking about should not be inline since they don't
belong to any one execution path.

<text removed>
(I hope you don't mind this annotation -- over at comp.lang.c I just
remove text from my replies to you as is your preference, but people
here will not have seen that exchange and I prefer to mark edits.)

-- 
Ben.