how about: "break label;" ?
just a thought
From: Andi Gutmans andi@zend.com
To: "Sara Golemon" pollita@php.net,internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] GOTO operator
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 00:13:51 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: andi@127.0.0.1
Received: from pb1.pair.com ([216.92.131.4]) by mc9-f26.hotmail.com with
Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6824); Sat, 31 Jul 2004 00:14:21 -0700
Received: (qmail 21507 invoked by uid 1010); 31 Jul 2004 07:14:12 -0000
Received: (qmail 21456 invoked by uid 1010); 31 Jul 2004 07:14:11 -0000
X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jEhitu4NH5K6pJRNQwoa+2D
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
list-help: mailto:internals-help@lists.php.net
list-unsubscribe: mailto:internals-unsubscribe@lists.php.net
list-post: mailto:internals@lists.php.net
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net
Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net
Message-Id: 5.1.0.14.2.20040731001327.02821998@127.0.0.1
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
In-Reply-To: 20040731042517.4546.qmail@pb1.pair.com
References: 200407291830.55971.ilia@prohost.org
20040729021337.73894.qmail@pb1.pair.com
1091139076.29517.12.camel@blobule.suds 410991E1.6070000@hristov.com
200407291830.55971.ilia@prohost.org
5.1.0.14.2.20040730114632.02bc89c8@127.0.0.1
5.1.0.14.2.20040730120146.02ec7ac8@127.0.0.1
5.1.0.14.2.20040730121624.02bc8880@127.0.0.1
Return-Path: internals-return-11756-xuefer=hotmail.com@lists.php.net
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jul 2004 07:14:21.0331 (UTC)
FILETIME=[00488630:01C476CE]At 09:24 PM 7/30/2004 -0700, Sara Golemon wrote:
c) I don't think you are creating the necessary switch_free's and
other
frees when jumping out of a scope unexpectedly.Entirely possible. The tests I've run don't complain but that doesn't
mean
something bad isn't happening.Thanks for the pointers, I at least see what I need to be exploring now
(though I havn't sat down to unfold its meaning yet). Cetainly the
implementation given earlier needs work whether its to make it work as
advertised or in the more limited fashion suggested in other posts.I intend to put some work into it regardless of whether it'll be included
or
not. As I mentioned originally, this entire effort was meant as a
learning
exercise, and it's doing that job. If it's used: great. If not, it'll
just
stay where it is and those who want it can still patch it in.Sara,
Feel free to email me personally and I can help you out and give you advice
on what you should be looking at.Andi
--
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
If anyone in this debate hasn't read my independent request for goto and
"break label;", I would appreciate it if you would:
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=29287
I fully support the implementation of goto. Line labels will also
immensely improve the break statement, which currently requires you to
count the number of enclosing blocks you want to break out of, and won't
work the way you expect if you add a new loop or switch inside the loop
you're trying to break out of. In fact, I would recommend focusing more
energy on line labels for the break statement than on line labels for
goto. But, since we already have a goto implementation, I guess that's a
moot point. :)
Brian
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:16:54 +0800, Tinys Xuefer xuefer@hotmail.com
wrote:
how about: "break label;" ?
just a thought