Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site ea.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ea!mwm From: mwm@ea.UUCP Newsgroups: net.lang Subject: Re: Discouraging "GOTO"s in introductory - (nf) Message-ID: <5400004@ea.UUCP> Date: Thu, 31-May-84 17:07:00 EDT Article-I.D.: ea.5400004 Posted: Thu May 31 17:07:00 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 6-Jun-84 04:56:26 EDT References: <820@sdcsvax.UUCP> Lines: 20 Nf-ID: #R:sdcsvax:-82000:ea:5400004:000:595 Nf-From: ea!mwm May 31 16:07:00 1984 #R:sdcsvax:-82000:ea:5400004:000:595 ea!mwm May 31 16:07:00 1984 /***** ea:net.lang / wnuxb!laj / 6:10 pm May 29, 1984 */ >There's no way you can avoid GOTOs in COBOL, try as you might. I'm not sure I believe this. I would like to be convinced that this is so. Whether one should or should not use GOTOs in COBOL is, of course, an entirely different matter. Larry Johnson ihnp4!wnuxb!laj /* ---------- */ Larry, you are correct not to believe this. The person who taught the COBOL course I took claimed have written a goto-less production COBOL program. She also said that it made the thing a *lot* longer (truly bad news for COBOL!).