每个人都知道Dijkstra的《致编辑的信》:goto语句被认为是有害的(这里。html transcript和这里。pdf),从那时起,就有一种强大的推动力,尽可能避免使用goto语句。虽然可以使用goto来生成不可维护的、庞大的代码,但它仍然存在于现代编程语言中。即使Scheme中先进的连续控制结构也可以被描述为复杂的后向。

在什么情况下需要使用goto?什么时候最好避免?

作为一个后续问题:C提供了一对函数setjmp()和longjmp(),它们不仅提供了在当前堆栈帧内进行跳转的能力,还提供了在任何调用帧内进行跳转的能力。这些应该被认为和goto一样危险吗?更危险?


Dijkstra自己也对这个头衔感到后悔,因为这不是他的责任。在EWD1308的结尾(也在这里。pdf),他写道:

Finally a short story for the record. In 1968, the Communications of the ACM published a text of mine under the title "The goto statement considered harmful", which in later years would be most frequently referenced, regrettably, however, often by authors who had seen no more of it than its title, which became a cornerstone of my fame by becoming a template: we would see all sorts of articles under the title "X considered harmful" for almost any X, including one titled "Dijkstra considered harmful". But what had happened? I had submitted a paper under the title "A case against the goto statement", which, in order to speed up its publication, the editor had changed into a "letter to the Editor", and in the process he had given it a new title of his own invention! The editor was Niklaus Wirth.

Donald E. Knuth写了一篇关于这个主题的经典论文,它与Dijkstra的论文相匹配,那就是结构化编程与语句。阅读既有助于重建上下文,也有助于对主题的非教条性理解。在本文中,Dijkstra对这个案例的观点被报道,并且更加强烈:

Donald E. Knuth:我相信通过呈现这样一个 事实上,我并不是不同意 Dijkstra的观点,因为 他最近写道: “请不要落入。 相信我是可怕的 教条的关于[去]的教条的 声明)。我觉得很不舒服 感觉别人在做 宗教出来了,好像 编程的概念问题 只用一个小技巧就能解决,用什么 一种简单的编码纪律!”


当前回答

跳跃的例子在Java字符串类源代码:

int firstUpper;

/* Now check if there are any characters that need to be changed. */
scan: {
    for (firstUpper = 0 ; firstUpper < count; ) {
         char c = value[offset+firstUpper];
         if ((c >= Character.MIN_HIGH_SURROGATE) &&
                 (c <= Character.MAX_HIGH_SURROGATE)) {
             int supplChar = codePointAt(firstUpper);
             if (supplChar != Character.toLowerCase(supplChar)) {
                  break scan;
             }
             firstUpper += Character.charCount(supplChar);
         } else {
             if (c != Character.toLowerCase(c)) {
                  break scan;
             }
             firstUpper++;
         }
     }
     return this;
}
[... subsequent use of firstUpper ...]

这可以用很少的开销重写,例如:

 int firstUpper = indexOfFirstUpper();
 if (firstUpper < 0) return this; 

即使在现代语言中,即使我实际上不喜欢使用gotos,但我认为它们在许多情况下是可以接受的,在像这样的低级情况下,我看起来更好(它不仅仅是退出循环)。

没有激起宗教战争的意图。

其他回答

在生成C状态机时,使用GOTO会很好。我永远不会在手写代码中使用GOTO——“现代”语言结构使它完全没有必要。

setjmp/longjmp构造在某些情况下(缺少“真正的”异常时,或者在实现Chicken scheme之类的东西时)可能有用,但在“普通”编程中没有它的位置。

我们已经讨论过这个问题了,我坚持我的观点。

此外,我受够了人们将高级语言结构描述为“伪装的goto”,因为他们显然根本没有抓住重点。例如:

即使Scheme中先进的连续控制结构也可以被描述为复杂的后向。

那完全是胡说八道。每个控制结构都可以在goto方面实现,但这个观察完全是微不足道和无用的。Goto被认为是有害的,因为它的积极影响,而是因为它的消极后果,这些已经被结构化编程消除了。

Similarly, saying “GOTO is a tool, and as all tools, it can be used and abused” is completely off the mark. No modern construction worker would use a rock and claim it “is a tool.” Rocks have been replaced by hammers. goto has been replaced by control structures. If the construction worker were stranded in the wild without a hammer, of course he would use a rock instead. If a programmer has to use an inferior programming language that doesn't have feature X, well, of course she may have to use goto instead. But if she uses it anywhere else instead of the appropriate language feature she clearly hasn't understood the language properly and uses it wrongly. It's really as simple as that.

并不是说去做本身不好;而是当同样的逻辑可以用另一种方式更清楚地表达时,使用goto是不好的。它会使代码很难遵循,也会使维护变得困难。以《糟糕的过去》中的一些Basic程序为例。

在我看来,在像c#这样的现代语言中,我们不应该在正常情况下需要goto。如果我发现自己正在使用它,这通常表明我需要重新思考我的逻辑——几乎肯定有一种更清晰的方式来使用正常的代码流语句来表达相同的代码。

也就是说,对于某些特殊的目的来说,goto是非常有用的(我发现自己对那些没有goto的语言非常恼火)。我主要在C语言中使用它来打破多层循环,或者进行错误处理;我相信c#的语言特性意味着您不必这样做。(它在生成自动生成代码时也非常有用,但大多数人在现实生活中不会遇到这种情况。)

goto还有一个纯粹的政治问题:很多人讨厌它,在代码中使用它,即使是合理的,也可能会引起问题。如果这是作业代码,那么是的,重写它,否则你可能会被扣分。否则,我倾向于把它留在那里,直到下次你需要对那部分进行维护。

我只记得用过一次goto。我有一系列五个嵌套计数循环,我需要能够根据某些条件从内部打破整个结构:

    for{
      for{
        for{
          for{
            for{
              if(stuff){
                GOTO ENDOFLOOPS;
              }
            }
          }
        }
      }
    }
    
    ENDOFLOOPS:

我可以很容易地声明一个布尔中断变量,并将其用作每个循环的条件的一部分,但在这种情况下,我认为GOTO是一样实用和一样可读的。

没有迅猛龙攻击我。

Since I began doing a few things in the linux kernel, gotos don't bother me so much as they once did. At first I was sort of horrified to see they (kernel guys) added gotos into my code. I've since become accustomed to the use of gotos, in some limited contexts, and will now occasionally use them myself. Typically, it's a goto that jumps to the end of a function to do some kind of cleanup and bail out, rather than duplicating that same cleanup and bailout in several places in the function. And typically, it's not something large enough to hand off to another function -- e.g. freeing some locally (k)malloc'ed variables is a typical case.

I've written code that used setjmp/longjmp only once. It was in a MIDI drum sequencer program. Playback happened in a separate process from all user interaction, and the playback process used shared memory with the UI process to get the limited info it needed to do the playback. When the user wanted to stop playback, the playback process just did a longjmp "back to the beginning" to start over, rather than some complicated unwinding of wherever it happened to be executing when the user wanted it to stop. It worked great, was simple, and I never had any problems or bugs related to it in that instance.

Setjmp /longjmp有它们自己的位置——但那个位置是你不太可能只在很长一段时间内访问一次的地方。

编辑:我只是看了一下代码。实际上,我使用的是siglongjmp(),而不是longjmp(不是说这是一个大问题,但我已经忘记了siglongjmp的存在。)