Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:20868
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <001301c5f557$e5e7f0f0$a9cb1a44@stumpy>
To: "Robert Cummings" <robert@interjinn.com>
Cc: <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <2B.E1.14828.4130D834@pb1.pair.com> <1133315514.21940.12.camel@blobule.suds>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:43:47 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Labeled Break (nothing at all whatsoever to do withGOTO)
From: pollita@php.net ("Sara Golemon")

> Hello, I represent group B (not in any way officially or anything else
> that might give my words an iota of weight), but I (*cough cough*) WE
> think that the above break system would make a terrible system for
> finite state machines.
>
Good, 'cause that's not its purpose.  This doesn't supplant GOTO or preclude 
it.  This is a different topic about a different feature which just happens 
to touch on SOME similar talking points.

> Additionally at this time I'd like to make clear that we are in support
> for full uncrippled break WITHIN scope. Group A can feel free to travel
> to the burning fires of hell and have a barbecue, and group C should
> join us so that at least they get what they want as a subset.
>
Lead on the charge good sir... lead on.

> As an aside, from what I've read, the multitude were in favour of
> unrestricted goto. Quite a few were in favour of none at all (but not as
> many as in group B) and those in favour of none at all had a large
> subset that were in favour of unrestricted goto in the event that group
> B should get their way :)
>
Not to put too fine a point on it, but there's a limited subset of the 
voices on this list that carry the weight needed to push a feature like goto 
into the engine.  Amongst those voices there is a much less decisive quorum.

-Sara