Cuch, sure, my problem is something that sacrifices _both_ out of "performance, complexity of design and implementation", wondering if that's the way to go./* I sure hope we can avoid thread-drift here (there's Programming forum for that :]), but code readability and maintainability in short.Compare FORTRAN 77do label var = expr1, expr2, expr3 statementslabel continuewith Fortran 90:do var = expr1, expr2, expr3 statementsend doIn FORTRAN 77 you have to maintain the "label" (avoid collisions, remember to match the right one) and you introduce syntactic noise -- as in here: do 20 i = 10, 1, -2 write(*,*) 'i =', i 20 continueWhat you care about is "10, 1, -2" -- "20" is just a distraction and stands in the way of expressing your intent most clearly and succinctly (the point is not that you jump to label 20, the point is that you're looping).And, sure, what Dijkstra said (structured programming), although that's of lesser importance than the clarity point to me (we break pure structured programming in a lot of ways).Although, if you can save some significant no. of CPU cycles and the only / best way to do that is to use GOTO, then go ahead, I'm not dogmatic.*/
Last edited by Polter
on October 3rd, 2011, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.