|
hmm, what do you think? Why is the name of the Exception object "Exception" - because you should (ab)use it for control program flow?
So I see it like this:
Use Exceptions for exceptions
Avoid goto, but if you must, why not use goto?
A single goto, for a purpose as shown above, for shure does not leed to spaghetti-code,
but don't try to replace all your for/whiles... with a goto.
|
|
|
|
|
A simple 'break' would do the job, no need for 'goto'...
Regards
Thomas
|
|
|
|
|
break will only break the inner most loop!
C# is not java where you could have labelled loop...
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
_________________________________________________________
My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
|
|
|
|
|
I know.
But in the pseudocode above it will definitely execute the 'beep bop a loola'...
Regards
Thomas
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas Weller wrote: A simple 'break' would do the job, no need for 'goto'...
Except that a break doesn't break out of two for loops, just the inner one - necessitating a flag to detect whether the outer loop should be exited too.
In C# this seems a legitimate usage to me. I just wish C# had JavaScript's labelled loops/breaks, yielding the following code style:
outer_loop:
while (true) {
inner_loop:
while (true) {
if (condition1)
break inner_loop;
if (condition2)
break outer_loop;
}
}
Given that and fall-through in switch..case I see no need for goto.
|
|
|
|
|
A 'labelled break' is a 'goto' alias.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
What I mean is: a 'break' would be enough to execute the 'beep bop a loola' ...
By the way: I'd consider a 'flag' much better than a 'goto'...
Regards
Thomas
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas Weller wrote: By the way: I'd consider a 'flag' much better than a 'goto'...
Personally, I don't like introducing variables to track these kinds of conditions, but I guess at these levels it really comes down to choice of programming style.
Granted, though, that often the need to perform such trickery may often signal a deficiency that may better be addressed by refactoring.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Grainger wrote: often the need to perform such trickery may often signal a deficiency that may better be addressed by refactoring
I fully agree on that. The need to introduce variables (or a 'goto') for the mere sake of controlling execution flow to me is clearly what is called a 'code smell'.
Rob Grainger wrote: I guess at these levels it really comes down to choice of programming style
Yup. The one way isn't really much better than the other...
Regards
Thomas
|
|
|
|
|
Add && !foo to the for loop conditions and/or use while instead.
|
|
|
|
|
Even Java has the "goto" similarity where you can "continue" to a label.
|
|
|
|
|
Use a break statement instead!
|
|
|
|
|
try it!
you will improve you C# knowledge!
or maybe read better... it's a double nested loop
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
_________________________________________________________
My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
|
|
|
|
|
That code was written simply to make a point, it's not "real" code, so it doesn't qualify as a Coding Horror.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe someone was just trying to test something and forgot to yank out the code?
One can dream right....
|
|
|
|
|
(You need to follow the link.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
"Not only do you continue to babble nonsense, you can't even correctly remember the nonsense you babbled just minutes ago." - Rob Graham
|
|
|
|
|
I've programmed for over 10 years. The old BASIC, like GW-Basic or BasicA, yes I can honestly say that goto came in handy. However, I never once used it in C,C++, VB.NET or C#. Never. Since all modern languages have a Continue statement and a Break statement (for loops), I never needed a use for a goto.
The reason, I'm guessing, that its not being removed in modern languages is to keep it compatible with old code. Very rarely does a language "lose" a command. They keep them so old code is compatible.
|
|
|
|
|
It's an understatement to say that "goto came in handy" in the old style BASIC. You had to use GOTO because the language was severely lacking in control flow. DO ...LOOP didn't exist, so you had to make those loops with GOTO . SELECT CASE didn't exist, so you had to use ON ...GOTO . Multi-line IF statements didn't exist, so you either had to cram everything on one line or use GOTO . And exceptions didn't exist, so you used ON ERROR GOTO .
So you ended up with code like this, filled with GOTO . And furthermore, line numbers were mandatory on every line, so it was very difficult to tell which lines were GOTO targets and which weren't.
And this is what caused all the animosity towards the GOTO statement.
|
|
|
|
|
LMAO!!!!
Didn't release it even existed in c#!! Love it!
That will show those annoying OO purest with their fancy classes and methods and thingies!!
Go the GOTO!
|
|
|
|
|
for... do... while... return... switch... if... else... are all glorified GOTO statements. They all translate to assembler JMP by compiler.
|
|
|
|
|
We ran into the following nice bit of code.
public static bool UniqueAssetNo(int assetId, string assetNo)
{
try
{
string sql = @"Select Count(*) " +
@"From (Select AssetId, LoanNum " +
@" From Asset (NOLOCK) " +
@" Where ({0} = 0 Or AssetId <> {0}) " +
@" And (LoanNum Not Like '%[A-Z]%') And LTrim(RTrim(LoanNum)) <> '') qry " +
@"Where Cast('{1}' As bigint) = Case When qry.LoanNum = '' Then 0 else Cast(qry.LoanNum as bigint) end";
...
...
What do you think? :P
|
|
|
|
|
Glad I haven't eaten yet.
|
|
|
|