1 Dec
2020
1 Dec
'20
5:03 a.m.
jason-tuhs(a)shalott.net writes:
Bourne commented on the omission of goto from the Bourne shell, "I
eliminated goto in favour of flow control primitives like if and for.
This was also considered rather radical departure from the existing
practice."
Was this decision contentious at all? Was there a specific reason for
goto's exclusion in the Bourne shell?
I don't remember if this story has been told here before or not but I got
it from Steve a few months ago. Ever wonder by the shell was symmetrical
with if and fi, case and esac, but then had do and done? Reason was that
by the time Steve wrote the shell, Ken had written the od command and dug
in his heels and wouldn't change the name.
Jon