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.