Mike Kamrad wrote:
> Thanks, Sam, for the reference to your message and to Knuth's article. I
> have read Knuth's paper years ago and it is excellent.
> Let me remind folks that my message was motivated to understand why
> continue was not included and not to start a ground swell for change...mike
Well, I think the short answer to that was that the "continue" was
seen as being of limited utility. There are always a huge number
of features that COULD be added to a language, and the value of each
must be balanced against the additional complexity it would introduce.
Also, I think it is viewed as being a less-structured construct.
There are people who don't think "exit" should be a statement, but
that exiting should be part of the loop structure. One can make
a similar, and stronger, theoretical argument about "continue."
Since there was little demand for it, and some resistance to it,
it didn't get into the language.
Bear in mind, also, that Ada was originally developed in a competition
to design the best structured programming language. "Continue"
strikes a lot of people as C-like, and so inherently poorly
structured. So, in the competition, there would have been a
political/social benefit to its exclusion. Did this have an
effect? I wasn't working with Mr. Ichbiah, I don't know.
Samuel Mize -- [log in to unmask] (home email) -- Team Ada
Multi-part MIME message: " ", " ", " " (hands waving)
Fight Spam - see http://www.cauce.org/