It's a bit like reinstating the goto statement
. Plenty of people love "goto" and insist that it never made them write badly structured code, but still....?..
Together with an index variable, the GOTO statement can also be used to implement DO loops, which are not yet available in PCOMP:
N) THEN GOTO 6000 ENDIF However, it is recommended to avoid GOTO statements whenever possible, and to replace them by SUM and PROD statements, if applicable.
Typing a GOTO statement
will enter a subroutine in the batch file.
While this is not difficult to program, it requires extra tests and flags, more complex loop conditions, or possibly the use of a goto statement
A goto statement
is referred to as forward referencing when the "labeled" statement being referenced appears textually after the goto statement
IF YOU CAN TAKE IT, MORE ON GOTOs Rubin's letter concerning the GOTO statement
 provides an excellent example of the harm caused by the use of GOTOs in programming.
In this situation it was clear that they should not be allowed to use the GOTO statement
, given their lack of experience in making "mature programming decisions" about the use of control structures.
However, his letter did little to support the vindication of the GOTO statement
. There were two factors whih contributed to a superficial desirability of GOTO statement
in the solution o Rubin's problem.
His position is that the GOTO statement
should be reinstated as a programming tool, reversing its banishment following Dijkstra's famous letter.
Fortran programmers could only simulate structured constructs by enforcing a discipline on the use of the goto statements
Knuth says that, in spite of noble ideals, "teachers, being pedantic the way they are, would just communicate without understanding." The same thing happened with structured programming, Knuth says; those who say it is programming without using GOTO statements
miss the point.