> On Jul 15, 2016, at 1:07 AM, Bill Woodger <[email protected]> wrote: > > That's just side-stepping the question(s) Ed :-) > > I don't know of anywhere where ALTER is allowed (except I know of one guy who > "uses it all the time" and likens it to the way he does his shopping in the > supermarket) or has been for the last 37 years. > > But that was not the point of mentioning ALTER in the discussion. The point > is, ALTER = bad name, GO TO ... DEPENDING ON ... = bad name, GO TO = bad name > "except where I use it to make the code easier". All of those "became bad", > there is no intrinsic problem in them (unless you can win an argument on > that) and were in fact even recommended in early documentation. What has made > them "bad" is usage, usage outside "best practice". Now, hear comes another > GO TO, "disguised" as a "structured concept". So, that's going to g... > proceed well, isn't it? No, not really, exactly the same will happen, for > sure. OK, I'm not a subscriber to "history repeats itself", but the way > people continue to (ab)use GO TO and try to create semi-recursive PERFORMs > leads me to that conclusion.
———————————————SNIP——————————————————————————— Not to get into structured programming issue at all (I think it has its good as well as bad points). But the idea (I thought) of readable programs, alter goto’s (in my mind) destroy simple readability as what you read does not represent a necessary reality. Ed ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
