Printable View
ill let you be as confused as i am.plz find wat prob isCode:#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
int guess;
cout<<"I am thinking of a number between 1 and 10."<<endl;
cin>>guess;
while(guess!=5)
{
cin.get();
if(guess<5)
{
cout<<"Too low try again"<<endl;cin.get();
}
else if(guess>5)
{
cout<<"Too high, try again"<<endl;cin.get();
}
}
cout<<"Well done"<<endl;
return 0;
}
wow that code is messy
try this
Code:#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
int guess;
int number = 10;
retry:
cout<<"i am thinking of a number between 1-10 try and guess it"<<endl;
cout<<"guess:"<<endl;
cin >> guess;
if(guess > 10)
{
cout<<"to high"<<endl;
goto retry;
}
else if(guess < 10)
{
cout<<"to low"<<endl;
goto retry;
}
else if(guess == number)
{
cout<<"well done you got it!"<<endl;
}
cin.get();
}
ewww.... did you just suggest goto?
The problem is that you are not getting the new value of guess within the while
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
int guess;
cout<<"I am thinking of a number between 1 and 10."<<endl;
while(guess!=5)
{
cin>>guess;
if(guess<5){
cout<<"Too low try again"<<endl;
}
else if(guess>5){
cout<<"Too high, try again"<<endl;
}
}
cout<<"Well done"<<endl;
return 0;
}
whats so bad about goto? :rolleyes:
i think using goto is allright with smaller programs..
goto is best avoided. Its better you go in for other options when available.
ask dijkstraQuote:
Originally Posted by cgod
http://www.xahlee.org/UnixResource_d...goto_harm.html
Haha, this simple prog adapt to newbie like me,
below is my trying:
Code:#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
int guess;
cout<<"I am thinking of a number between 1 and 10."<<endl;
cin>>guess;
while(guess!=5)
{
if(guess<5)
{
cout<<"Too low try again"<<endl;
cin>>guess; //instead of cin.get();
}
else if(guess>5)
{
cout<<"Too high, try again"<<endl;
cin>>guess;
}
}
cout<<"Well done"<<endl;
system("pause");
return 0;
}
there's no need for goto in any program, ever...Quote:
Originally Posted by cgod
[grandpa simpson] Lets sacrifice him to our god! [/gs]Quote:
Originally Posted by cgod
instead of
tryCode:system("pause");
the first one is less desireable because if I write a program called pause.exe and overwrite the program on your system with it, every one of your programs that uses that command will run my code without you even knowing it...Code:cin.get();
in some programs you might have to use goto
You never "have to" use goto. Whether there is ever a good reason to use goto or not is debatable, but you never "have to" use goto.Quote:
Originally Posted by cgod
well unless you use goto your going to have to rewrite code alot
No, if you don't use goto, then you use functions and loops, which are more appropriate, easier to read, more maintainable, etc...Quote:
Originally Posted by cgod
Please save yourself from developing bad habits early in your programming careers. Never use goto. Also, conforming to modern coding conventions will allow you to be accepted amoung the OOP community. People won't laugh at you and your code. :)
would using functions instead of goto slow down larger prorgams?
Generally, when you are attempting to make your program faster, you use a profiler or some other tool to identify what parts of your code need to be optimized. In most cases, you need only change your algorithm, and not the programming structures you are using to implement that algorithm.
It is possible, in some rare cases, that you might obtain a performance benefit from using goto over certain other options, however, you might as well use assembly if you really want the performance gain. If you are a C++ programmer, and you are worried about that type of overhead, then you should be using C. In most cases I would guess that the fear of the program being slower is unfounded and actually leads to more time being spent debugging and maintaining the goto than is saved by using it.
Wouldn't void functions that take no parameters be a close if not exact equivalent of a goto? It's a jump in code execution, with no added stack allocation/deallocation for parameters that I can think of.
no. functions translate to CALL and RETURN type of assembly instructions. No parameter makes it so that less stuff needs to be PUSHed and POPed, but still is much slower. Aside from that, goto is one direction and doesn't return.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter2
yes, I think functions were a bad example. however lets use a "for instance". In the code example you presented you changed a while loop to a conditional goto. This gained nothing in the area of speed. The dissasembly should show pretty much the same output.Quote:
Originally Posted by cgod
For the most part, code that uses a goto can directly translate to an easier to read construct. There are some occasions (when you haven't put any thought into your algorithm) that there is no direct translation and it would take a little more effort to convert the function. Best idea is to just not use it as a rule. It gains you nothing and causes a world of pain.
I stand corrected.Quote:
no. functions translate to CALL and RETURN type of assembly instructions. No parameter makes it so that less stuff needs to be PUSHed and POPed, but still is much slower.
I was thinking of a block of code that you goto, then at the end of the block there's another goto that jumps back to where you were. On second thought though, I realize that that still wouldn't work.Quote:
Aside from that, goto is one direction and doesn't return.