Hello Wez, just to continue on this nice argument: Jump reminds me of the worst addition to c ever: longjump.
marcus Friday, March 10, 2006, 2:36:56 PM, you wrote: > My vote is +1 for goto, just because that largely describes what it > does and how it is used. I don't mind if it winds up being called > jump, I just think it will be easier for people to find it when they > need it if it is called 'goto'. 'goto' also comes with all the usual > anti-goto propaganda that will help discourage people that shouldn't > be using it from using it. > --Wez. > On 3/9/06, Dmitry Stogov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> The solution (2) - "goto only" is the winner. >> So in case of no serious objections, I'll commit the "goto.diff" patch in 24 >> hour. >> >> The last question: >> What do you thin about Andi's solution about using "jump" instead of "goto"? >> >> It may make sense, because it is not a full analog of C's goto statement. It >> is a limited "goto". It allows jump back and forward, but not INTO loops and >> switch statements. >> >> Thanks. Dmitry. >> >> -- >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php >> >> Best regards, Marcus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
