Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?

[Rik van Riel <riel _at_ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Rob Wilkens wrote:

> However, I have always been taught, and have always believed that
> "goto"s are inherently evil.  They are the creators of spaghetti code

If the main flow of the code is through a bunch of hard to trace
gotos and you choose to blame the tool instead of the programmer,
I guess you could blame goto.

However, the goto can also be a great tool to make the code more
readable.  The goto statement is, IMHO, one of the more elegant
ways to code exceptions into a C function; that is, dealing with
error situations that don't happen very often, in such a way that
the error handling code doesn't clutter up the main code path.

As an example, you could look at fs/super.c::do_kern_mount()

        mnt = alloc_vfsmnt(name);
        if (!mnt)
                goto out;
        sb = type->get_sb(type, flags, name, data);
        if (IS_ERR(sb))
                goto out_mnt;

Do you see how the absence of the error handling cleanup code
makes the normal code path easier to read ?

regards,

Rik
-- 
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/		http://guru.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap:  <a href=mailto:"october _at_ surriel.com";>october _at_ surriel.com</a>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo _at_ vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/