I can certainly see advantages to your method.  Adding, deleting and=20
re-arranging steps is MUCH more difficult with my method.  I originally=20
"invented" my method (20+ years ago) on a PC using QuickBasic.  I have=20
used it with QuickC, MSVC, and on Rabbit controllers, as well as PICs.

I work with small (16F) PICs, and my compiler (CCS PCW) does not support=20
indirect function calls that your method uses (Yes, that can be gotten=20
around)

When all is said and done, all we can do is present methods and let eaxh=20
programmer take what they like.  Your method is definitely going in MY=20
toolbox.

Kerry


Isaac Marino Bavaresco wrote:
> Em 17/02/2014 02:35, Kerry Wentworth escreveu:
>  =20
>> I suppose "straightforward and easy to write and understand" is in the=20
>> eye of the beholder.
>>    =20
>
>
> Correct, one becomes accustomed to using a certain programming style and
> produces good results with it.
> Not to say there are not other styles, some of them simpler and with
> other benefits.
>
> =20
>  =20
>> I do find myself occasionally needing to jump forward to step 14, or=20
>> backwards to step3,  usually due to a detected mechanical  malfunction. =
=20
>> The equivalent  of the dreaded  goto,  I guess.  Convenient, if not=20
>> actually necessary.
>>    =20
>
>
> Indeed, sometimes a well placed 'goto' solves a lot of problems,
> simplifies the code and makes it more efficient.
> It is easy to put a goto in a co-routine, it is done exactly the same as
> in a normal function.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Isaac
>
>
>  =20
>
>  =20

--=20
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.