| ??? 09/24/05 09:54 Read: times |
#101481 - no flaw, but seriously not recommended Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I'm with Erik on this one. There seems to be no justification for making the code execution so difficult to follow, and the expectation is always that execution continues after a subroutine call. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| RET to a different address | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| here is how pseudocode | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RET to a different address | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| no flaw, but 1.000.000 gotchas | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| That's what I wanted to know | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| "clever" | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| OT: my wife | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| no flaw, but seriously not recommended | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| experience | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| reload SP | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| restoring stack | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Recognisable string | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| named return value | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Bad Practice | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Well phrased | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| What I am doing with it | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| try...catch | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| setjmp / longjmp | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| when to try ... catch | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| the borderline | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Promises | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| who cares if an exceptiom is "acceptable | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Parsing input data | 01/01/70 00:00 |