On Mon, 20 Apr 2009, Elad Efrat wrote:
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 22:06:47 +0300 Elad Efrat <elad%NetBSD.org@localhost> wrote:I actually prefer this style, even if there is no point, and I am going to cast a doubt over any claims of measurable performance impact. :)The issue is the comprehensional complexity of goto.I hold a different opinion, but seem to be at a minority at the moment. Diff attached.
Add me to your minority. :)It's much clearer for me to have the "return" rather than the "goto". With the "goto" I have to look ahead (or even behind) to find the label, to see what cleanup, if any is going on. Interrupting a sequential operation is just "distracting."
:) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Paul Goyette | PGP DSS Key fingerprint: | E-mail addresses: | | Customer Service | FA29 0E3B 35AF E8AE 6651 | paul at whooppee.com | | Network Engineer | 0786 F758 55DE 53BA 7731 | pgoyette at juniper.net | | Kernel Developer | | pgoyette at netbsd.org | -------------------------------------------------------------------------