Thread: Not important, only a curiosity...

Hello, I'm wondering if the use of goto is so wrong as some people say: I understand that this is to avoid the "spaghetti" problem ( I remember some "outstanding" C64 program... ) but used with wishdom I think it's a good possibility.

For example, I can use it to jump directly to a common exit part of a function from any place in the function where I catch an error...

BrownB

Oh yes, another curiosity: how does the "rating" work in these forums?

search the boards for both of those answers then ask again

Structure your program correctly and there is no need for a goto statement.

I have seen a single useful goto in about 6 years of everyday professional coding. No, it's not totally useless, only in 99.99% of the cases. As a rule of thumb, if you see one, it's wrong.

Originally Posted by BrownB

Hello, I'm wondering if the use of goto is so wrong as some people say: I understand that this is to avoid the "spaghetti" problem ( I remember some "outstanding" C64 program... ) but used with wishdom I think it's a good possibility.

» The goto statement was once widely used. Unfortunately code that used goto extensively was poorly structured and could easily become unmanageable, and is known as "spaghetti code". Today, programming languages provide other ways to structure code so goto is rarely needed. In C++ it is always possible to use something other than goto to achieve what you need.

Note that the use of goto is a religious issue and has provoked a great deal of debate. In C++ there is always a better alternative for writing loops, so you don't need to use goto at all. There are other circumstances where goto may be more appropriate than the alternatives, though that is a seperate subject.

Originally Posted by BrownB

For example, I can use it to jump directly to a common exit part of a function from any place in the function where I catch an error...

» Like previously stated, there is always a better alternative to the goto statement. Keep in mind when you use it to exit a block which contains aggregates requiring destructors, the destructors will run before the goto transfers control. The compiler still forbids using goto to enter a scope that requires constructors.

The indiscriminate use of goto statements has caused tangled, miserable, impossible-to-read programs. To avoid the use of goto, more sophisticated, tightly controlled looping commands have been introduced: for, while, and do-while. Using these makes programs more easily understood, and goto is generally avoided, but one might argue that the case has been a bit overstated. Like any tool, carefully used and in the right hands, goto can be a useful construct, and the ANSI committee decided to keep it in the language because it has its legitimate uses.

Originally Posted by BrownB

Oh yes, another curiosity: how does the "rating" work in these forums?

» Some feel that the reputation aspect is not much more than just a fun little addition. It has nothing to do with your real status on the board. It's just for readers to see how reliable your response is.

The Reputation System is not something I would stress over.


- Stack Overflow

Psst, Stack: We're on the C board here. No C++, deconstructors, etc.

I know,

It's best I give the whole explanation than just half of it.


- Stack Overflow

does anyone see anything wrong with this code?

Code:

void main(char **c, int i)
{
    int x;
    if(x)
       x = 0;
   else 
      goto label;
  label:

  __asm mov eax, x
}

You mean besides the bassackwards main() definition? Or were you just referring to the sheer uselessness of the entire program?

uh, the bassackwardsness