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

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。

其他回答

在一个完美的世界里,我们永远不需要GOTO。然而,我们生活在一个不完美的世界。我们并没有包含我们所能想到的所有控制结构的编译器。有时我觉得使用GOTO比拼凑一个并不存在的控制结构更好。

最常见的(并不是说它很常见)是循环半结构。你总是执行第一部分,也许你执行剩下的部分,然后返回,再执行第一部分。当然,你可以在while循环中使用布尔标记来实现它,但我不喜欢这个答案,因为在我看来它不太清楚。当你看到这样的东西:

loop:
  GetSomeData;
  if GotData then
     Begin
        ProcessTheData;
        StoreTheResult;
        Goto Loop;
     End;

对我来说,这比

Repeat
  GetSomeData;
  Flag := GotData;
  if Flag then
    Begin
      ProcessTheData;
      StoreTheResult;
    End;
Until Not Flag;

有些时候

Function GotTheData;

Begin
  GetSomeData;
  Result := GotData;
End;

While GotTheData do
  Begin
    ProcessTheData;
    StoreTheResult;
  End;

不是一个可行的答案,我坚信代码应该是清晰的。如果我必须做一个注释来解释代码在做什么,我会考虑是否可以让代码更清晰,并去掉注释。

Goto很有用,这里有一个用c++写的非常强大的开源象棋引擎stockfish的例子。goto只是跳过了一些条件检查(效率增益),如果没有goto语句,程序就必须这样做。如果goto语句标签位于goto声明之后,那么它们就非常无害且可读。

“在这个链接http://kerneltrap.org/node/553/2131”

具有讽刺意味的是,取消goto引入了一个错误:自旋锁调用被省略了。

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。

Using a goto makes it far too easy to write "spaghetti code" which is not particularly maintainable. The most important rule to follow is to write readable code, but of course it depends on what the goals of the project are. As a "best practice" avoiding a goto is a good idea. It's something extreme programming types would refer to as "code smell" because it indicates that you may be doing something wrong. Using a break while looping is remarkably similar to a goto, except it isn't a goto, but again is an indication that the code may not be optimal. This is why, I believe, it is also important to not find more modern programming loopholes which are essentially a goto by a different name.