or "goto: goto jump"
On 3/9/06, Stanislav Malyshev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For such people we might have a page in the manual saying:
> goto: see jump
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 10:07:46 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bastian Grupe) wrote:
> Steph Fox wrote:
> > Zeev's
> > nightmare scenario re new users and spaghetti code has a good
> > chance of coming true. It's the one command just about everyone's
> > heard of.
> >
> > - Steph
>
> If you look at the
Steph Fox wrote:
Zeev's
nightmare scenario re new users and spaghetti code has a good chance of
coming true. It's the one command just about everyone's heard of.
- Steph
If you look at the scripts in the wild, this scenario is already very
present and one of the reasons things like register
At 22:43 09/03/2006, Lester Caine wrote:
Zeev Suraski wrote:
You are back to the main problem, you cannot educate people by keeping
them away from the "dangerous" functions.
Uhm, of course you can. Avoiding problems is by far the best way
of solving them. But it has nothing to do with our to
Zeev Suraski wrote:
You are back to the main problem, you cannot educate people by keeping
them away from the "dangerous" functions.
Uhm, of course you can. Avoiding problems is by far the best way of
solving them. But it has nothing to do with our topic.
So can we have a 'disable' switch
The reason for using jump is "because it is not a full analog of C's goto
statement". It's my guess that experienced developers will want to lookup
what the behaviour in PHP is.
Cool. You just gave an excellent argument for not calling it 'goto' :)
Seriously, the manual entry will probably use
Steph Fox wrote:
If someone is searching for "goto" he/she most likely knows what
he/she is looking for. So this also helps experienced developers who
are new to PHP.
An experienced developer would know how to use it...!
That was kind of the point.
- Steph
The reason for using jump is "bec
If someone is searching for "goto" he/she most likely knows what he/she
is looking for. So this also helps experienced developers who are new to
PHP.
An experienced developer would know how to use it...!
That was kind of the point.
- Steph
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing L
Steph Fox wrote:
BdB>>Even though I like "jump", people will most likely be searching for
BdB>>"goto" (PHP manual) or "goto PHP" (Google) when they're trying to
BdB>>find out if PHP has such a functionality. So, maybe it's better to
BdB>>just call it "goto".
For such people we might have a page
At 19:37 09/03/2006, Pierre wrote:
On 3/9/06, Steph Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > BdB>>Even though I like "jump", people will most likely be searching for
> > BdB>>"goto" (PHP manual) or "goto PHP" (Google) when they're trying to
> > BdB>>find out if PHP has such a functionality. So, maybe i
SF>>Erm, wouldn't those people who need to refer to the manual be exactly the
SF>>same people we wanted to protect from goto in the first place? :)
OK, make it:
goto: you don't really want to use it, but if you are still curious, see "jump".
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer
[EMAIL
On 3/9/06, Steph Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > BdB>>Even though I like "jump", people will most likely be searching for
> > BdB>>"goto" (PHP manual) or "goto PHP" (Google) when they're trying to
> > BdB>>find out if PHP has such a functionality. So, maybe it's better to
> > BdB>>just call it "
BdB>>Even though I like "jump", people will most likely be searching for
BdB>>"goto" (PHP manual) or "goto PHP" (Google) when they're trying to
BdB>>find out if PHP has such a functionality. So, maybe it's better to
BdB>>just call it "goto".
For such people we might have a page in the manual sayi
Even though I like "jump", people will most likely be searching for "goto"
(PHP manual) or "goto PHP" (Google) when they're trying to find out if PHP
has
such a functionality. So, maybe it's better to just call it "goto".
Agreed. As the man said this morning, let's "Consider our Audience".
"G
BdB>>Even though I like "jump", people will most likely be searching for
BdB>>"goto" (PHP manual) or "goto PHP" (Google) when they're trying to
BdB>>find out if PHP has such a functionality. So, maybe it's better to
BdB>>just call it "goto".
For such people we might have a page in the manual sa
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Bart de Boer wrote:
> Even though I like "jump", people will most likely be searching for "goto"
> (PHP manual) or "goto PHP" (Google) when they're trying to find out if PHP has
> such a functionality. So, maybe it's better to just call it "goto".
>
> PHP will give some kind o
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 11:03:48 +0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Dmitry Stogov") 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 "j
That's 'one man one vote' NOT 'one mail one vote' :)
- Original Message -
From: "bertrand Gugger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ; "Steph Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Dmitry Stogov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednes
Steph Fox wrote:
I'm not concerned by the vote.
Please, Bertrand, the goto/labelled breaks discussions were held ad
infinitum last June, and back in December, and again more recently. The
_only_ concern now is the vote. Anything else will lead to so much noise
on here we can't hear ourselve
I'm not concerned by the vote.
Please, Bertrand, the goto/labelled breaks discussions were held ad
infinitum last June, and back in December, and again more recently. The
_only_ concern now is the vote. Anything else will lead to so much noise on
here we can't hear ourselves think, and since
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Michael Wallner wrote:
Dmitry Stogov wrote:
1) goto and break label
+0
3) break label only (like Java)
+1
You do realize that this is:
label:
while(condition) {
break label;
}
As a C programmer this confuses me to no end. When I see "label:" I
expect c
RL>>I still think this is a really fringe feature that isn't worth one of
RL>>the first forward compatibility breaks in the procedural language in
RL>>years.
For the record, I'm happy even without either feature :) but I remember
labeled break was quite useful for me in Perl - and it seems to m
label_a:
$i=0;
label_b:
$i++;
while($i<10) {
if(foo()) continue label_b;
else {
if(bar($i++)) goto label_a;
}
}
And that would be a parse error.
break/continue label only works when the label IMMEDIATELY preceeds the loop
construct thus saying "I identify th
Dmitry Stogov wrote:
Rasmus,
C hasn't "break label;", and I don't understand why Java way confising C
people.
It is clear and fit into structured programming.
But the thing doesn't say:
this-is-a-break-label label:
It just says:
label:
Which would lead me to write something like:
label
2006 7:09 PM
> To: Stanislav Malyshev
> Cc: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: GOTO and/or BREAK LABEL
>
>
> Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> > RL>>As a C programmer this confuses me to no end. When I
> see "label:"
> > RL>>I expe
Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
RL>>As a C programmer this confuses me to no end. When I see "label:" I expect
The question is should all languages be like C? So, C has it that way, and
Java and Perl have it other way. We don't move to prefix notation because
Forth has it ;)
No, obviously all lan
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> Michael Wallner wrote:
> > > 3) break label only (like Java)
> > +1
>
> You do realize that this is:
>
> label:
> while(condition) {
>break label;
> }
>
> As a C programmer this confuses me to no end. When I see "label:" I expect
> control
RL>>As a C programmer this confuses me to no end. When I see "label:" I expect
The question is should all languages be like C? So, C has it that way, and
Java and Perl have it other way. We don't move to prefix notation because
Forth has it ;)
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer
[EM
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Michael Wallner wrote:
Dmitry Stogov wrote:
1) goto and break label
+0
3) break label only (like Java)
+1
You do realize that this is:
label:
while(condition) {
break label;
}
As a C programmer this confuses me to no end. When I see "label:" I
expe
Michael Wallner wrote:
Dmitry Stogov wrote:
1) goto and break label
+0
3) break label only (like Java)
+1
You do realize that this is:
label:
while(condition) {
break label;
}
As a C programmer this confuses me to no end. When I see "label:" I
expect control to end up there
30 matches
Mail list logo
