Re: GOTO operator

php.internals

tinys xuefer

22 years ago
how about: "break label;" ? just a thought
>From: Andi Gutmans <andi@zend.com> >To: "Sara Golemon" <pollita@php.net>,internals@lists.php.net >Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] GOTO operator >Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 00:13:51 -0700 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >X-Sender: andi@127.0.0.1 >Received: from pb1.pair.com ([216.92.131.4]) by mc9-f26.hotmail.com with >Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); Sat, 31 Jul 2004 00:14:21 -0700 >Received: (qmail 21507 invoked by uid 1010); 31 Jul 2004 07:14:12 -0000 >Received: (qmail 21456 invoked by uid 1010); 31 Jul 2004 07:14:11 -0000 >X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jEhitu4NH5K6pJRNQwoa+2D >Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm >Precedence: bulk >list-help: <mailto:internals-help@lists.php.net> >list-unsubscribe: <mailto:internals-unsubscribe@lists.php.net> >list-post: <mailto:internals@lists.php.net> >Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net >Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net >Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net >Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040731001327.02821998@127.0.0.1> >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 >In-Reply-To: <20040731042517.4546.qmail@pb1.pair.com> >References: <200407291830.55971.ilia@prohost.org> ><20040729021337.73894.qmail@pb1.pair.com> ><1091139076.29517.12.camel@blobule.suds> <410991E1.6070000@hristov.com> ><200407291830.55971.ilia@prohost.org> ><5.1.0.14.2.20040730114632.02bc89c8@127.0.0.1> ><5.1.0.14.2.20040730120146.02ec7ac8@127.0.0.1> ><5.1.0.14.2.20040730121624.02bc8880@127.0.0.1> >Return-Path: internals-return-11756-xuefer=hotmail.com@lists.php.net >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jul 2004 07:14:21.0331 (UTC) >FILETIME=[00488630:01C476CE] > >At 09:24 PM 7/30/2004 -0700, Sara Golemon wrote: >> > > > c) I don't think you are creating the necessary switch_free's and >>other >> > > > frees when jumping out of a scope unexpectedly. >> > > > >> > >Entirely possible. The tests I've run don't complain but that doesn't >>mean >> > >something bad isn't happening. >> > >>Thanks for the pointers, I at least see what I need to be exploring now >>(though I havn't sat down to unfold its meaning yet). Cetainly the >>implementation given earlier needs work whether its to make it work as >>advertised or in the more limited fashion suggested in other posts. >> >>I intend to put some work into it regardless of whether it'll be included >>or >>not. As I mentioned originally, this entire effort was meant as a >>learning >>exercise, and it's doing that job. If it's used: great. If not, it'll >>just >>stay where it is and those who want it can still patch it in. > >Sara, > >Feel free to email me personally and I can help you out and give you advice >on what you should be looking at. > >Andi > >-- >PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >
_________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

Brian Kell

22 years ago
If anyone in this debate hasn't read my independent request for goto and "break label;", I would appreciate it if you would: http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=29287 I fully support the implementation of goto. Line labels will also immensely improve the break statement, which currently requires you to count the number of enclosing blocks you want to break out of, and won't work the way you expect if you add a new loop or switch inside the loop you're trying to break out of. In fact, I would recommend focusing more energy on line labels for the break statement than on line labels for goto. But, since we already have a goto implementation, I guess that's a moot point. :) Brian On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:16:54 +0800, Tinys Xuefer <xuefer@hotmail.com> wrote: