Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:102500
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.208.44 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c8G7Wte7+9mN=2bS_G51o1VnWHLLDZ8N0Zzpw7kD9n0jQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF+90c_xCxxakMBpU45Xow1BkhS+O7ZxBENQMSEY+CrSa_C0YA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ca79817e-50ec-27ce-4b7d-ef683c846ff4@gmail.com> <CAF+90c8G7Wte7+9mN=2bS_G51o1VnWHLLDZ8N0Zzpw7kD9n0jQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 18:43:39 +0100
Message-ID: <CALKiJKoOaOPWuqoqaUSUTPAwxkQ-Yd1nm6Ttyk-eiQezAp6mGw@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b96f09056fa327bd"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Deprecate and remove continue targeting switch
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Collins)

--000000000000b96f09056fa327bd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On 26 June 2018 at 19:27, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:

> a) In PHP "switch" is considered a looping structure, for this reason
> "break" and "continue" both apply to "switch", as aliases. For PHP, these
> are reasonable semantics, as PHP supports multi-level breaks. It would be
> very questionable if "break N" and "continue N" could refer to different
> loop structures just because there is a "switch" involved somewhere.
>


I think this point should be highlighted: this is not just an unfortunate
legacy decision, it would be *really bad* if "break 2;" sometimes referred
to a different loop from "continue 2;"

Other languages don't have that problem, because they don't have the
"continue N" syntax.

I'm +0.5 on Nikita's proposal to make this an error - it can't mean
anything other than "continue with this switch statement", but that doesn't
actually mean anything. The error is effectively saying "Can't 'continue' a
switch, because it's not really a loop."

Perhaps rather than deprecating and removing it, we should simply raise a
Warning on its use: "Use of 'continue' to terminate switch; did you mean
'break', or to continue a loop instead?" In other words, "we've done what
you asked, but we think it might not be what you meant".

Regards,
-- 
Rowan Collins
[IMSoP]

--000000000000b96f09056fa327bd--