I did not want to be the one to rehash this again but I would love to have this as I do it manually all the time with comments. +1
Ralph DiMola IT Director Evergreen Information Services rdim...@evergreeninfo.net -----Original Message----- From: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On Behalf Of Mark Waddingham via use-livecode Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 5:51 AM To: How to use LiveCode Cc: Mark Waddingham Subject: Re: Bug 20255 - Simple Loop Labeling On 2017-08-10 21:33, Dr. Hawkins via use-livecode wrote: > In fact, what I would *like* is modern Fortran style labelling or > something like that, and the ability to the those labels to controls > like next and exit. This, however, would accomplish so much with so > little. Thinking out loud here and taking into account suggestions people have made in the past... Naming loops in a syntactic way certainly sounds like a useful thing to do: repeat for each line tLine in tContainer named LineLoop repeat for each item tItem in tLine named ItemLoop if some complicated condition then exit repeat ItemLoop else if some other complicated condition then exit repeat LineLoop end if -- do other stuff if some even more complicated condition then next repeat LineLoop end if end repeat ItemLoop end repeat LineLoop Certainly 'exit repeat ...' would not be harmful, 'next repeat ...' I'd have to analyze more deeply. The main problem with GOTO (apart from the ability to create very hard to understand code) is that it allows creation of what is called 'unstructured control-flow'. Basically that means that you have to work *exceptionally* hard to untangle it in a compile to perform any sort of reasonable optimization. At present LiveCode only allows you to produce 'structured control flow'. Adding 'next repeat ...', doesn't change that... However, 'next repeat ...' is not so clear (I think it is probably fine, but need to check some algorithmics). The only other issue with the above (beyond implementing it) is the syntax... It would reserve 'named' as a non-operator in this context. If we did ever have reason to have 'X named Y' then in repeats you'd have to do: repeat for each line tLine in (tContainer named ...) named ... Although - without knowing what 'named' might do as an operator, or being able to think of anything it could do - that is probably a safe addition from that point of view. (Of course we could use 'labelled' instead of 'named' in the repeat context - 'labelled' seems for some reason less likely to be leveragable as a binary operator!) Warmest Regards, Mark. -- Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/ LiveCode: Everyone can create apps _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
