Hello Dmitry, my advice just like Wez' is to name it 'goto' because that is what it is. (to drop the 2nd part that might have confused you).
best regards marcus p.s.: To make me happy you'd have to drop the mess Sunday, March 12, 2006, 10:44:19 AM, you wrote: > 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. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
