[BusyBox] [PATCH] Read-only option for losetup.c

[Rob Landley]

On Sunday 10 April 2005 05:14 pm, Tito wrote:
> On Sunday 10 April 2005 22:10, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> > Jason Schoon <floydpink at gmail.com> writes:
> > > I know GOTO's have a horrible rep,
> >
> > As this apparently will not stop to invade my mail box on its own: The
> > so-called 'horrible reputation' of goto dates back to ancient FORTRAN
> > and a single paper by Dijkstra, which offered no better arguments than
> > (paraphrased quote) "Our abilities to understand processes evolving in
> > time are rather poor",
>
> Hi,
> I'm not pro nor contra gotos. I as newbie in programming
> have made my own guideline:
>
> "If the starting and ending point of a goto fit in one screen and it
> makes the code easier to read it's ok to do so, if the ending point
> is some thousend lines away it is  a BAD THING(TM)"
>
> Just my 0.02 Eurocents. ;-P
> ...or should I say just my 40 italian lire.

Interesting historical note:

Early in Java's development, it had numbered breaks (break 2, break 3, etc).  
This was found to be brittle because wrapping a block of code in curly 
brakets could now break stuff.  So they went to labels, which means they're 
basically using goto under a different name. :)

Now the SICK part is that gcc allows you to take the address of a label to do 
a "computed goto":

http://visual-mingw.sourceforge.net/doc/gcc-3.2.3/Labels-as-Values.html

Rob