Advertisement

A control statement for natural top-down structured programming

  • Charles T. ZahnJr.
Structures De Controle Control Structures
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 19)

Abstract

In recent years there has been a great deal of discussion concerned with the advantages of a top-down structured style of programming and the question of whether or not to banish the goto control statement. The most compelling arguments for the retention of goto have referred to common programming situations where the absence of goto causes some awkwardness in the programming task or loss of efficiency for the running program. We propose a new control statement which alleviates many of these known difficulties while maintaining the philosophy of structured control. The new statement is well-matched to top-down programming and in some respects allows program modifications to be performed more easily.

Keywords

Case Statement Structure Programming Compound Statement Programming Style General Decision Tree 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BOCHMANN G.V., "Multiple exits from a loop without the goto", Comm. ACM 16 (1973), pp. 443–444.Google Scholar
  2. CLINT M. and HOARE C.A.R., "Program proving: jumps and functions", Acta Informatica 1 (1972), pp. 214–224.Google Scholar
  3. DIJKSTRA E.W., "Goto statement considered harmful", Comm. ACM 11 (1968), pp. 147–148.Google Scholar
  4. DIJKSTRA E.W., "A short introduction to the art of programming", Technological University Eindhoven report EWD 316 (August 1971).Google Scholar
  5. DIJKSTRA E.W., "Notes on structured programming" in Structured Programming by Dahl, Dijkstra and Hoare, Academic Press (1972).Google Scholar
  6. FLOYD R.W., "Assigning meanings to programs", AMS Symposium in Applied Mathematics, Vol. XIX, 1967.Google Scholar
  7. HOARE C.A.R., Algorithms 63–65, Comm. ACM 4 (1961), pp. 321–322.Google Scholar
  8. HOARE C.A.R., "An axiomatic basis for computer programming", Comm. ACM 12 (1969), pp. 576–581.Google Scholar
  9. HOPKINS M.E., "A case for the goto", National ACM Conf. Proc. (1972), pp. 787–790.Google Scholar
  10. KNUTH D.E., "A review of structured programming", Stanford University Computer Science Department report CS-73-371 (June 1973).Google Scholar
  11. KNUTH D.E., Personal communication (January 1974).Google Scholar
  12. KNUTH D.E. and FLOYD R.W., "Notes on avoiding goto statements", Information Processing Letters 1 (1971), pp. 23–31.Google Scholar
  13. LANDIN P.J., "A correspondence between ALGOL 60 and Church's lambda-notation: part I", Comm. ACM 8 (1965), pp. 89–101.Google Scholar
  14. LEAVENWORTH B.M., "Programming with(out) the goto", National ACM Conf. Proc. (1972), pp. 782–786.Google Scholar
  15. LISKOV B., "Report of session on structured programming", Notices of ACM Special Interest Group on Programming Languages, (SIGPLAN), Vol. 8, No. 9 (September 1973), pp. 5–10.Google Scholar
  16. WEGNER E., "Tree-structured programs", Comm. ACM 16 (1973), pp. 704–705.Google Scholar
  17. WIRTH N., "On certain basic concepts of programming languages", Stanford University Computer Science Department report CS-65 (May 1967).Google Scholar
  18. WULF W.A., "Programming without the goto", Conf. Proc. IFIP-71 (1971), pp. 408–413.Google Scholar
  19. WULF W.A., "A case against the goto", National ACM Conf. Proc. (1972), pp. 791–797.Google Scholar
  20. WULF W.A., RUSSELL D.B. and HABERMANN A.N., "BLISS: A Language for systems programming", Comm. ACM 14 (1971), pp. 780–790.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1974

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles T. ZahnJr.
    • 1
  1. 1.European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN)GenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations