hashing external names & other goodies.

[Thomas Murphy]

> 
> > |And "goto <label>" is even better, you don't have to change the language
> > |at all.
> > |
> > |-Ron
> >
> > Ron, perhaps you missed the point. The major objection to GOTO's is that they
> > can lead to spaghetti code, but "break <label>" cannot do so, as it allows
> > only a clearly limited type of downward escape, while avoiding the pitfalls
> > of having to count nesting levels.
> > 
> > David   sde at mitre-bedford
> 
> I do understand the point, but BREAK-TO is not structred anymore than
> any sort of gotos.  If you just say, it's OK to user goto's rather only
> in these well-defined casees, you can get by WITHOUT MAKING GRATUITOUS
> AND UNNECESSARY CHANGES TO THE LANGUAGE.  BREAK-TO is a total unnecessary
> change.  You're not going to be able to get rid of goto (one of the nice
> things about C is that it allows careful programmers to break the structure
> and typing rules), adding break-to is redundant.
> 
> -Ron

By this reasoning we can quickly reduce ourselves to working with a turing
machine. A while statement is redundant because we have goto and if 
statements. "break <label>" reflects a structured concept that mirrors how I
view a problem being solved; besides it is not as random and clumsy as a goto.

Tom     murphy at lll-tis