We already have exceptions, so we don't need another longjump :) "jump" or "goto"? Just make common decision and I will change it.
Thanks. Dmitry. > -----Original Message----- > From: Marcus Boerger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 1:22 AM > To: Wez Furlong > Cc: Dmitry Stogov; internals@lists.php.net > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] GOTO and/or BREAK LABEL (conclusion) > > > 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 > > > -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
