|laziness, impatience, and hubris|
Re: Go to?by SamCG (Hermit)
|on Apr 11, 2006 at 00:23 UTC||Need Help??|
I'd suggest you mark updates as such. Coming to this post the first time I was quite surprised by your apparent vehemence for an initial post. It turned me off (though I saw later that it was a response).
I sort of agree with you -- if a go to function exists and there's a reason to use it, ignore ideology. That said, I've never really had a desire to use a goto statement. Maybe that is inexperience. Though I am quite confused about your rationale; I believe I've written plenty of code that handles job failures just fine without modification and doesn't use goto statements. Your situation could be different, though, and personally I don't care (and won't even think badly of you)if you litter your code with goto's.
I don't think those who've responded with you have been quite as harsh or dogmatic as you seem to think. Maybe you should come back to this thread after a week or so. Forgive me for suggesting how you should respond, but instead of a long diatribe you could have simply said something like "A goto is appropriate for my situation".
And now I've spent enough time looking at this.
s''limp';@p=split '!','n!h!p!';s,m,s,;$s=y;$c=slice @p1;so brutally;d;$n=reverse;$c=$s**$#p;print(''.$c^chop($n))while($c/=$#p)>=1;