Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ritcv.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!ritcv!kar From: kar@ritcv.UUCP (Kenneth A. Reek) Newsgroups: net.lang Subject: Re: Re: Teaching students with GOTO Message-ID: <1079@ritcv.UUCP> Date: Sun, 3-Jun-84 09:54:11 EDT Article-I.D.: ritcv.1079 Posted: Sun Jun 3 09:54:11 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Jun-84 19:43:05 EDT References: <5806@mcvax.UUCP> <9000024@uokvax.UUCP> <2732@brl-vgr.ARPA> Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY Lines: 13 Regarding the debate on "break n" vs "goto" to get out of a loop: My master's thesis included the design and implementation of a programming language which I now consider to be not very noteworthy. It did have one interesting feature, however -- an enhanced break statement. I originally implemented "break n", where "n" was a constant, but quickly realized that something better was needed. I allowed loops to be labelled and put in "break x", where "x" was a loop label, thus avoiding the problem of counting levels of indenting and program maintenence. This allowed one to easily and safely break out of (or continue) nested loops other than the innermost one enclosing the statement. There was no need for a goto statement in the language.