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!).