bartc <b...@freeuk.com> writes: > On 30/12/2017 16:53, mm0fmf wrote: >> On 30/12/2017 14:41, bartc wrote: >>> it looks a bit naff >> >> Understatement of 2017. > > I'm honest about my own ideas, but my remarks were about the use of > special symbols such as "::" and "@". > > Before completely dismissing it however, you should look at how > another language such as Python can achieve the same thing. > > Namely, take any block of code within a function, and allow it to be > executed or shared from anywhere else in the function, with the > minimum of disruption.
That's what a local function does and it does it with the clean semantics of a function call. When this idea came up in comp.lang.c you could not see the point, yet you appear to have a use-case common enough that you have a solution worked out using gotos. > If it looks better than what I'd come up with, then I'll use that instead. What looks better is always going to be an unreliable and subjective measure, but calling a named function almost certainly scales better and will allow for better structuring (such as when one block needs to use another one). -- Ben. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
