On 17/01/2018 3:19 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:51:55 +0000, Seymour J Metz wrote:
That's a common beginners' mistake. Try putting the label inside a do block and see
what happens. A proper goto would pop what needs to be popped and no more. See
<http://www.rexxla.org/Newsletter/9812safe.html>.
Yes.
There I also read:
Continuation
REXX allows implicit continuation; a statement is treated as continued
if it
would otherwise be syntactically invalid. ...
???
Not in any Rexx I know. Is this perhaps a peculiarity of OS/2 Rexx?
And C has an improper GOTO. It allows branching into a block. It's
implementation
dependent whether initializations are performed then. Ugh!
If you don't like those semantics don't use goto. My ROT is to only use
goto for branching to error handlers or cleanup routines.
If you look at the Linux kernel code including s390 you will see lots of
goto statements used just for that purpose. It's amusing to read threads
about what the maintainers think about this subject
http://koblents.com/Ches/Links/Month-Mar-2013/20-Using-Goto-in-Linux-Kernel-Code/.
_______________________________________
From: Jack J. Woehr
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2018 3:40 PM
On 1/14/2018 11:35 AM, Seymour J Metz wrote:
REXX doesn't have a goto
Sure it does: SIGNAL
-- gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
