Goto (Posting On Python-List Prohibited)

[MRAB]

On 2017-12-31 23:21, bartc wrote:
> On 31/12/2017 22:09, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> 
>> No, you missed the point and did not address the question.  You said (now
>> cut)
>> 
>> | If I thought introducing functions, whether local or not, as a way of
>> | avoiding goto was worth doing, I would do so.
>> 
>> but I'm not sure you know if it's worth it or not.  So here's my
>> question again: what language (or languages) were you using when you
>> concluded that it was not worth using local functions to avoid gotos?
>> Maybe you had a bad experience from some language that did it badly.
> 
> What makes you think I had a bad experience? I posted a version using
> Python a few hours ago (which needs the local function to be moved to
> work properly).
> 
> The same example works in my language (one of them anyway), but I still
> find a quick goto the simplest thing to do especially when the code is
> not complete so I don't know what will be added or changed or moved,
> which will be harder as soon a specific sequence is extracted into a
> function.
> 
> Also, what would be the duplicated code is seen to 'belong' to one of
> the options, rather than be anonymous.
> 
> (Here is the same example in my static language:
> https://pastebin.com/raw/dX2FNK7a
> 
> fn1 uses goto. fn2 uses a local function (not very demanding here so it
> works). fn3 uses the special 'block-call' feature which I no longer use
> (but I haven't yet got rid of it).
> 
> I prefer fn1 and fn3 because the code stays inline. If I had some
> inspiration for a better feature then I'd have fn4 and maybe fn5 too.)
> 
The compiler could inline automatically, or you could be explicit:

proc fn2(int a)=
     inline proc f123=
         println "One"
         println "Two"
         println "Three"
     end

     case a
     when 1 then
         f123()

     when 2 then
         println "Four"

     else
         println "Other"
         f123()
     esac
end

(or possibly "inline f123=").

[snip]

OT: if "case ... esac" and "if ... fi", why not "proc ... corp"? :-)