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; [email protected]
> 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
>
>
>