Impressed

[Alex Rønne Petersen]

On 27-07-2012 14:56, Stuart wrote:
> On Friday, 27 July 2012 at 02:41:21 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 04:09:36 +0200
>> "Stuart" <stugol at gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I can't think of ANY situation where goto would be the only viable
>>> option.
>>
>> Duff's device.
>
> According to Wikipedia, Duff's device (about which, until just now, I
> knew nothing) can be implemented without goto. Then again, this might be
> due to "features" of C++ that are not present in D.
>
> In any case, isn't it the job of the compiler to unroll loops? Why
> should the coder have to do this himself? Unless of course he's using a
> thin shitty wrapper over assembly language that claims falsely to be a
> high-level language - i.e. C.

It was a high-level language at the time it was created.

-- 
Alex Rønne Petersen
alex at lycus.org
http://lycus.org