Оля Тележная <olyatelezhnaya@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> one place improves readability. If better readability is the
>> purpose, I would even say
>>
>> for (i = 0; i < used_atom_cnt; i++) {
>> if (...)
>> - goto need_obj;
>> + break;
>> }
>> - return;
>> + if (used_atom_cnt <= i)
>> return;
>>
>> -need_obj:
>>
>> would make the result easier to follow with a much less impact.
>
> It's hard for me to read the code with goto, and as I know, it's not
> only my problem,...
That sounds as if you are complaining "I wanted to get rid of goto
and you tell me not to do so???", but read what I showed above again
and notice that it is also getting rid of "goto".
The main difference from your version is that the original function
is still kept as a single unit of work, instead of two.
