Hi Jason,
I think that in any case, if it is implemented it will have to follow two basic rules:
a) The goto has to be local.
b) You can't jump into an execution block but only out of one.
Andi
At 09:06 PM 7/30/2004 -0400, Jason Garber wrote:
PG> [snip] i'm somewhat confuzzled why you, of all people, are advocating such
PG> mutilation of do-while(), which is *abuse* of the construct. mutilating one
PG> construct to emulate another construct, which won't be implemented because
PG> it could be abused and mutilated, just doesn't compute for me.
I must say that this is my line of thought also...
PG> i am onboard with the no-goto-out-of-local-scope argument, which the PG> do-while() kludge imposes as well. no reason this limitation can not be PG> implemented, if it isn't already (it is afair), in the patch.
I say restrict it to local scope. Perhaps this borders on opinion, but the mere thought of chasing a goto into other files and functions and classes - blah.
It seems that it would make it easier and faster to do at least several common operations within local scope.
When all you want to do is move the execution pointer to a specific place in the LOCAL scope, it really beats wacked out loops and multi level break's.
I say give the programmers the choice of what to use, and make it a personal mission to "spread the good news" about proper coding methodologies to the very large and less experienced group of php users out there.
Hey, I got a good idea... Let's just implement it and not put it in the manual. Then only the "privileged internals list members" will know about it! :) Just kidding.
~Jason
-- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
-- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
