Talk:COMEFROM

message: I don't see any discussion here of the resemblance between block structured exception handling and COMEFROM. "Catch" clauses are very much like a "structured" cousin of COMEFROM, as the point from which control is transferred doesn't specify where it goes, and instead the point at which it arrives "catches" it.--74.104.131.76 15:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Isn't there something going on in the examples, where the variables "Solon" "Gfar" and "Ewell" (Solong, farewell) are defined, but elsewhere in the listing, and in the summary afterward, the variable becomes "Gear"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.35.233 (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example 

message: :The most practical known use of a COMEFROM-like structure is as a breakpoint during debugging. One implementation of FORTRAN included it, under the name "AT", as a debugging aid, with dire warnings against using it in production code. In addition, many modern CPUs have hardware support for breakpoints.
Do these "hardware breakpoints" really act like COMEFROM, or are they some kind of "break" instruction that isn't at all like COMEFROM? The latter sounds much more likely to me... - furrykef (Talk at me) 08:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They really do act like COMEFROM. The CPU has special debug registers which hold the addresses of instructions that should be made to trap. Any regular instruction can be made to trap, without needing to replace the instruction. An x86 supports 4 simultaneously. Most debuggers don't use them, because break instructions are easier and because the debug registers are best used for watching data. AlbertCahalan 04:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breakpoints 

message: For those who will surely doubt...
Yes, that's real assembly language for a real CPU. I know it looks like a bastard hybrid of C and FORTRAN. It's the kind of assembly language you get from people who design a CPU with hardware support for 6 simultaneous COMEFROMs. The SHARC is VLIW, so that crazy line with 3 math operations and two memory loads is also real... and executes with single clock cycle throughput.
BTW, SHARC also has two delay slots, word addressing, 48-bit instructions, and 40-bit floats. Anybody else think the designers were completely insane?
AlbertCahalan 04:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks to me like the SHARC example is just a plain old Fortran-style DO loop. The fact that SHARC supports six nested hardware loops is irrelevant; I think we can agree that if that code is equivalent to a DO loop, then it's not equivalent to a COMEFROM statement (because COMEFROM is an esoteric and half-meaningless joke, while DO is not). What am I missing? --Quuxplusone (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  SHARC example 

message: I have always thought of exceptions (try... catch... throw) as essentially "COMEFROM" as on the throw you don't know where you're going to but on the catch you (can) know where you've come from. I must admit I have actually used this abhorrently where GOTO is considered harmful overmuch. I would add a little section about this but I think it would be regarded "original research"-- I don't think I have published these thoughts except in internal publications. Any thoughts?
SimonTrew (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exceptions (C++ sense) 

message: I realize that 'comefrom' was intended as a joke, but somehow it bears a resemblance to the concepts of aspect oriented programming. Is there an AOP expert (or someone with more knowledge than me... which isn't much) :) out there that could perhaps comment on this? roe (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aspect oriented programming? 

message: The Ruby example implementation, aside from being redundant, is currently incorrect and should be removed. It cannot handle the case where a COME FROM may occur later in the program flow than the corresponding LABEL (it cannot jump "forwards"), which is clearly not a correct inverse of GOTO.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.3.250 (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruby example 

message: The two functions are used as:
    jmp_buf jmp_id;
    setjmp(jmp_id);   /* establish a "COMEFROM" point here */
    /* do whatever - go wherever */
    longjmp(jmp_id);  /* redirect to wherever the previous setjmp() was */
which does seem quite close to the description ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.210.249.81 (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm missing mentioning the analogy of "COMEFROM" with POSIX-style setjmp/longjmp 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on COMEFROM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121022080527/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/brook.street/funny/pdp11.htm to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/brook.street/funny/pdp11.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: WIth C# 12 introducing Interceptors, those seem like an example of comefrom actually being used, to me. Does that make sense as an addition? https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/whats-new/csharp-12 2A03:C100:FB04:B101:45B8:EFDA:B899:949A (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  C# Interceptors as an example of a COMEFROM construct being used