GOTO and/or BREAK LABEL

Hi,

Because of some confused people I reverted "break label" patch and post it
for discussion once again together with GOTO patch.

Please reviw and vote.

1. goto and break label
2. goto only (like C)
3. break label only (like Java)
4. nothing

5) goto, fowarding-jumping only.

- Sascha

Dmitry Stogov wrote:

Please reviw and vote.

1. goto and break label
2. goto only (like C)
3. break label only (like Java)
4. nothing

1. +1

Edin

Dmitry Stogov wrote:

1. goto and break label
   +0

3. break label only (like Java)
   +1

Regards,

Michael - <mike(@)php.net> http://dev.iworks.at/ext-http/http-functions.html.gz

DS>>1) goto and break label
DS>>2) goto only (like C)
DS>>3) break label only (like Java)
DS>>4) nothing

1. +0.5 2) -1 3) +1

--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer
stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/ +972-3-6139665 ext.115

Hi,

Because of some confused people I reverted "break label" patch and post it
for discussion once again together with GOTO patch.

Please reviw and vote.

1. goto and break label
2. goto only (like C)
3. break label only (like Java)
4. nothing

2. +0.5
3. +0.5

--
Wbr,
Antony Dovgal

1. goto and break label
   +1

I'm happy with goto, but don't mind getting labelled breaks "for
free"; labels are better than numbers.

2. goto only (like C)
   +1

3. break label only (like Java)
   +0.5, but only if we don't have goto

--Wez.

At 11:28 07/03/2006, Dmitry Stogov wrote:

Hi,

Because of some confused people I reverted "break label" patch and post it
for discussion once again together with GOTO patch.

Please reviw and vote.

1. goto and break label
2. goto only (like C)
3. break label only (like Java)
4. nothing

My vote: (1) +0.5, (4) +0.5

(3) +0.5
(4) +1

Hi,

Because of some confused people I reverted "break label" patch and post it
for discussion once again together with GOTO patch.

Please reviw and vote.

1. goto and break label
2. goto only (like C)
3. break label only (like Java)
4. nothing

thanks for this thread.
+0.5 for goto
+1 for "do { break label; } while(0); label:" (line label, same with goto)
or if the above is not acceptable, +0.5 for java like "label: do {
break label; } while(0);" (block label, confusing with goto)

Dmitry Stogov wrote:

1. goto and break label

+1

2. goto only (like C)

+1

3. break label only (like Java)

-1

Ilia

1. goto and break label
2. goto only (like C)
3. break label only (like Java)
4. nothing

Thanks for giving this a final chance, Dmitry.

1. +0.5
2. +1

• Steph

Dmitry Stogov wrote:

Hi,

Because of some confused people I reverted "break label" patch and post it
for discussion once again together with GOTO patch.

Please reviw and vote.

1. goto and break label
2. goto only (like C)
3. break label only (like Java)
4. nothing

For what it is worth:

1. +0.5
2. +1
3. +0
4. -1

I don't see any real benefit to break label as the deepest I have ever
seen is 3 levels of break. I have run up against too many situations
where the only way to lex something effectively in PHP is with pcre.
The ability to port a tool like re2c would make it far easier to do
things efficiently without having to write a new PHP extension. I doubt
any users will suddenly start peppering goto all over their source, I
just can't see that happening when there are so many other great loop
constructs available. Discouraging its use is easy - just make sure the
manual makes it really unattractive and has examples of better ways to
implement goto using for/foreach/while.

Greg

I'm with Rasmus on the break label stuff. Although it's not confusing
to me, I got convinced quickly that it'll be confusing to the wider
audience. So big -1 from me for (2) & (1).

I think we should either stick with nothing or go to a full goto
(without jumping into scopes of course). Only forward gotos would go
against one of the main initial motivations for discussing this which
was state machines.

I suggest we apply this and allow people to play around with it/test it....

Btw, how about naming it "jump" and not "goto"? :)
Andi

At 01:28 AM 3/7/2006, Dmitry Stogov wrote:

Hi,

Because of some confused people I reverted "break label" patch and post it
for discussion once again together with GOTO patch.

Please reviw and vote.

1. goto and break label
2. goto only (like C)
3. break label only (like Java)
4. nothing

My vote: (1) +0.5, (4) +0.5

Thanks. Dmitry.

Dmitry Stogov wrote:

1. goto and break label

+0.5

2. goto only (like C)

+1

3. break label only (like Java)

-1

Rob

1. goto and break label
   +0
   Making goto's labels work with break is cheap, but less vital than goto.

2. goto only (like C)
   +1
   Within scope and out of break context is a given. My preference is to not
   limit jumping to forward only, though such a limit would still be a step in
   the right direction.

3. break label only (like Java)
   0
   See #1

4. nothing
   -1

Hi,

Because of some confused people I reverted "break label" patch and post it
for discussion once again together with GOTO patch.

Please reviw and vote.

1. goto and break label
2. goto only (like C)
3. break label only (like Java)
4. nothing

My vote: (1) +0.5, (4) +0.5

Thanks. Dmitry.

--

1. +0
2. +1
3. -1
4. -1

I personally think labelled breaks are more fluff than anything. Like
Greg I just haven't seen any examples of trying to break out of more
than 3 loops in live code and I only recall seeing that once.

Hi,

1. goto and break label
   +1
2. goto only (like C)
   +1
3. break label only (like Java)
   -1
4. nothing
   -1

Regards,

Magnus "Currently 'a bit' inactive" Määttä

(2) +1e10

Hi,

Because of some confused people I reverted "break label" patch and
post it
for discussion once again together with GOTO patch.

Please reviw and vote.

1. goto and break label
2. goto only (like C)
3. break label only (like Java)
4. nothing

My vote: (1) +0.5, (4) +0.5

Thanks. Dmitry.

<tests.tar.gz

Hi,

Because of some confused people I reverted "break label" patch and post it
for discussion once again together with GOTO patch.

Please reviw and vote.

1. goto and break label
2. goto only (like C)
3. break label only (like Java)
4. nothing

2. +1

What's the policy on voting btw? Am I allowed?

Cheers,
Rob.

.------------------------------------------------------------.
| InterJinn Application Framework - http://www.interjinn.com |
:------------------------------------------------------------:
| An application and templating framework for PHP. Boasting |
| a powerful, scalable system for accessing system services |
| such as forms, properties, sessions, and caches. InterJinn |
| also provides an extremely flexible architecture for |
| creating re-usable components quickly and easily. |
`------------------------------------------------------------'

Dmitry Stogov wrote:

Hi,

Because of some confused people I reverted "break label" patch and post it
for discussion once again together with GOTO patch.

Please reviw and vote.

1. goto and break label

+1

2. goto only (like C)

+1

3. break label only (like Java)

+1

4. nothing

-1

regards,
Lukas

Hello Dmitry,

Tuesday, March 7, 2006, 10:28:27 AM, you wrote:

Hi,

Because of some confused people I reverted "break label" patch and post it
for discussion once again together with GOTO patch.

Please reviw and vote.

1. goto and break label

-1e307

2. goto only (like C)

-1e307

3. break label only (like Java)

given usable non confusing syntax i am ok

4. nothing

+1

My vote: (1) +0.5, (4) +0.5

"If i want Spaghetti i cook some and don't brew unreadable and
unmaintainable php code. And if i write a parser or scanner i
use C and only C and nothing else. And besides the latter there
is need for the concept goto."

And well i am ignoring the rest of this :-)

Best regards,
Marcus

Dmitry Stogov wrote:

Hi,

Because of some confused people I reverted "break label" patch and post it
for discussion once again together with GOTO patch.

Please reviw and vote.

1. goto and break label
2. goto only (like C)
3. break label only (like Java)

4. nothing

My vote: (1) +0.5, (4) +0.5

Thanks. Dmitry.

I'm not concerned by the vote.

"break" should be consistant with "continue"
so break labels could only be "like Java".

if confused with "goto", what are labels then ?

the case is very well shown by someone in the list, can't find the post
back, as:

etiquette: while (...) {
...
break etiquette; // breaks loop, next after the }
...
continue etiquette; // continues loop, next after the {
...
goto etiquette; // breaks and restarts loop
...
}

I can see what the 3 do with respect to any vote conclusion here.

Mixing "goto" with "break" and "continue" could bring confusion.
Not necessarly if established that goto will break any loop up to the
one where the target is.

Assuming labels can also be applied to non "loop" constructs, then goto
should break all loops up to the loop labeled by etiquette or containing
etiquette on its direct level.

Finally, I see goto as a nightmare, here.

Last troll's note:
goto has 2 "O" as Object Oriented

toggg

Dmitry Stogov wrote:

Hi,

Because of some confused people I reverted "break label" patch and post it
for discussion once again together with GOTO patch.

Please reviw and vote.

1. goto and break label
2. goto only (like C)
3. break label only (like Java)
4. nothing

My vote: (1) +0.5, (4) +0.5

Thanks. Dmitry.

I'm not concerned by the vote.

"break" should be consistant with "continue"
so break labels could only be "like Java".

if confused with "goto", what are labels then ?

the case is very well shown by someone in the list, can't find the post
back, as:

etiquette: while (...) {
...
break etiquette; // breaks loop, next after the }
...
continue etiquette; // continues loop, next after the {
...
goto etiquette; // breaks and restarts loop
...
}

I can see what the 3 do with respect to any vote conclusion here.

Mixing "goto" with "break" and "continue" could bring confusion.
Not necessarly if established that goto will break any loop up to the
one where the target is.

Assuming labels can also be applied to non "loop" constructs, then goto
should break all loops up to the loop labeled by etiquette or containing
etiquette on its direct level.

Finally, I see goto as a nightmare, here.

Last troll's note:
goto has 2 "O" as Object Oriented

toggg