Labeled Breaks (not the G-word)

19 years ago by Ford — view source

unread

I feel we're comparing apples with oranges here.

Break; is for breaking out of loops. It shouldn't have anything to do
with jumping to somewhere else. Let's say if PHP supported jumping
through the code. The following should then be two different things:

while (loop) {
goto LABEL;
}

LABEL

while (loop) {
break;
}

I think the question here is if we want to implement jumping
through the
code or not. If we do jumping in the code, this should be a
full-fledged feature. If not, there should be no jumping. And it
should, in my opinion, certainly not change the way break; works.

I'm completely indifferent about goto (in any form), but PLEASE can we have labelled break/continue -- something like:

LABEL: while (cond):
...
break LABEL;
...
endwhile;

while LABEL (cond):
...
break LABEL;
...
endwhile;

while (cond) LABEL:
...
break LABEL;
...
endwhile;

I can't tell you the number of times I've broken my own code by adding or removing an inner loop and failing to notice that a break/continue count needs incrementing/decrementing. Labelled breaks are a relatively simple addition to the syntax that would improve the programming experience out of all proportion. Yes it's complete syntactic sugar -- it doesn't do anything you can't currently do, just does it in a much more friendly way -- but incredibly helpful sugar ;)

Cheers!

Mike

Mike Ford, Electronic Information Services Adviser,
Learning Support Services, Learning & Information Services,
JG125, James Graham Building, Leeds Metropolitan University,
Headingley Campus, LEEDS, LS6 3QS, United Kingdom
Email: m.ford@leedsmet.ac.uk
Tel: +44 113 283 2600 extn 4730 Fax: +44 113 283 3211

To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm

19 years ago by Ron Korving — view source

unread

I agree. Like you I couldn't really care about a 'goto', I'd probably never
use it. But labeled breaks would really add something to the language. The
current break counters aren't very user friendly if you ask me.

I'm very much in favor of:

LABEL: while (cond)
{
...
break LABEL;
...
}

I've seen it being mentioned that the 'LABEL' would be appended to the while
loop, something like this:

while (cond)
{
...
break LABEL;
...
}
LABEL:

But I think that's absolutely hideous and looks like a 'goto' (which is most
likely why people began talking about adding 'goto' in the first place). If
it were up to me (and it's not), 'goto' will not be implemented in any form
and the break keyword can refer to numbers and labels and in case of the
latter, these would be PREpended to the loop construct.

Ron

""Ford, Mike"" M.Ford@leedsmet.ac.uk schreef in bericht
news:CDA511FF6152D14E922434CE338CE8BB275842@leedsmet-exch1.leedsmet.ac.uk...
I'm completely indifferent about goto (in any form), but PLEASE can we
have labelled break/continue -- something like:

LABEL: while (cond):
...
break LABEL;
...
endwhile;

while LABEL (cond):
...
break LABEL;
...
endwhile;

while (cond) LABEL:
...
break LABEL;
...
endwhile;

I can't tell you the number of times I've broken my own code by adding or
removing an inner loop and failing to notice that a break/continue count
needs incrementing/decrementing. Labelled breaks are a relatively simple
addition to the syntax that would improve the programming experience out of
all proportion. Yes it's complete syntactic sugar -- it doesn't do anything
you can't currently do, just does it in a much more friendly way -- but
incredibly helpful sugar ;)

Cheers!

Mike

To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to
http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm

19 years ago by Bart de Boer — view source

unread

I agree.

Although there's aanother thread running about namespaces that are about
to do something with ':' as well. Watch out that there aren't conflicts?

Ron Korving wrote:

I agree. Like you I couldn't really care about a 'goto', I'd probably never
use it. But labeled breaks would really add something to the language. The
current break counters aren't very user friendly if you ask me.

I'm very much in favor of:

LABEL: while (cond)
{
...
break LABEL;
...
}

I've seen it being mentioned that the 'LABEL' would be appended to the while
loop, something like this:

while (cond)
{
...
break LABEL;
...
}
LABEL:

But I think that's absolutely hideous and looks like a 'goto' (which is most
likely why people began talking about adding 'goto' in the first place). If
it were up to me (and it's not), 'goto' will not be implemented in any form
and the break keyword can refer to numbers and labels and in case of the
latter, these would be PREpended to the loop construct.

Ron

""Ford, Mike"" M.Ford@leedsmet.ac.uk schreef in bericht
news:CDA511FF6152D14E922434CE338CE8BB275842@leedsmet-exch1.leedsmet.ac.uk...
I'm completely indifferent about goto (in any form), but PLEASE can we
have labelled break/continue -- something like:

LABEL: while (cond):
...
break LABEL;
...
endwhile;

or

while LABEL (cond):
...
break LABEL;
...
endwhile;

or

while (cond) LABEL:
...
break LABEL;
...
endwhile;

I can't tell you the number of times I've broken my own code by adding or
removing an inner loop and failing to notice that a break/continue count
needs incrementing/decrementing. Labelled breaks are a relatively simple
addition to the syntax that would improve the programming experience out of
all proportion. Yes it's complete syntactic sugar -- it doesn't do anything
you can't currently do, just does it in a much more friendly way -- but
incredibly helpful sugar ;)

Cheers!

Mike

Mike Ford, Electronic Information Services Adviser,
Learning Support Services, Learning & Information Services,
JG125, James Graham Building, Leeds Metropolitan University,
Headingley Campus, LEEDS, LS6 3QS, United Kingdom
Email: m.ford@leedsmet.ac.uk
Tel: +44 113 283 2600 extn 4730 Fax: +44 113 283 3211

To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to
http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm