DM> But... but... there ARE cases where gotos make sense.  
 
 CD>  Being from Missouri, I've got to see it to believe it.  Even the
 CD>  various published pundits who say essentially the same as you never 
 CD>  show an example of "the judicious goto".
 DM> exit:
 DM> /* clean up pointers in reverse order of allocation, only if they
 DM> * point to valid memory - don't fclose NULL FILE*'s, don't
 DM> * close DosFindFile's that were never initiated or were finished
 DM> * properly, etc. */
 DM> return ulRC;
 DM> }
 DM> Single entry.  Single exit.  Flow always goes down, except in properly
 DM> defined structural loops (while, do while, for).  Clean-up code will
 DM> always get executed.  Adding extra clean-up code will not break
 DM> anything - it will also get executed every time because it is part of
 DM> the single exit. 
 
 Yeah... I've seen such things.  It's not the only way to do it.
 Nor are alternative methods (IMO) "less readable".
 
 DM> In C++, however, I can avoid most of this, if not all of it.  
 
 Which echo are we on?
 
 CD>  I suppose.  But I've found a fascinating correlation.  There are some
 CD>  folks who find goto quite useful to exit from deep inside nested
 CD>  loops.  Then there are those who don't get stuck inside of deeply 
 CD>  nested loops in the first place.
 DM> I wish all my programs were so simple and never needed modification
 DM> like that.  Unfortunately, the rest of us live in the real world where
 DM> requirements change faster than we can code them in.  
 
 What can I say?  If you find yourself painted into a corner, you have
 to take drastic measures.  I still think that avoiding getting stuck
 in the corner makes more sense.  I don't see where program size nor
 complexity matter there.
 
 DM> (We need better
 DM> managers, yes.  However, that's another real-world factor we have to
 DM> live with.  I can't afford to change jobs within 4 months of starting
 DM> my last one - it just looks bad.) 
 Not necessarily.  Right now, the programming job market
 is so tight that the 4 months of experience would qualify you as
 an certified expert!
 DM> [Sorry, Mr. Moderator, but he's been using that "real-world" line so
 DM> long already, and I was just waiting to see it used against him...  
 
 I've got no problem there.  There aren't two people in the world with
 the same real-life experiences.  Differing experience is just that.
 Differing experience shouldn't imply a lack of experience.
 
 DM> Now
 DM> that I've been sated, it won't happen again... I'll probably be
 DM> twitted, too ] 
 Sounds tempting, but I wouldn't want to risk damaging international 
 relations....
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0
---------------