Breaking out of a nested loop is very natural. using a label like "nestedBreak" or something). Using it to short-circuit the shortcomings of C's " break" command is not a problematic usage, so long as you make it clear from the code what your goto is supposed to accomplish (e.g. (Bonus: try and add a new feature now to the goto-only code.) That's why it's "evil", with suitable scope qualification around the "evil". And why that? Try it, try using "goto" instead of ordinary control logic statements, all the time, then try writing the same code again with the control logic, and tell me which one looks nicer and more understandable, and which one looks more like a mess. Why "goto" is called "evil" is because you should never use it to replace ordinary ifs, fors, and whiles. At worst, you just get bad code - and then you know you weren't using it right so long as you heard to be wary, but if you are wracking yourself trying to satisfy the dogmatism, I'd say that's worse. Not knowing this got me in a lot of trouble, too, to the point I'd say calling things dogmatically "evil" can be more harmful than the thing itself. Instead of just dogmatically accepting rules like "so-so is 'evil'", understand why that sentiment is claimed, and follow the "why", not the letter of the sentiment. to jump to a cleanup routine at the end of a function in order to return a failure code and deallocate memory.).
There are at least two uses where I'd say that if you use a goto for them - and don't use it for anything else - you should not only be 100% okay, but your program will be even more readable than without it, as it makes your intention that much clearer (there are ways to avoid it, but I've found all of them to be much clunkier): Like almost everything, goto is not 100% either/xor "bad" or "good". I know this is an old thread but I feel this really needs saying and don't have anywhere else to say it.
0 kommentar(er)
