OpenEuphoria

Re: GOTO

• Posted by Everett Williams <rett at GVTC.COM> Nov 16, 1999
• 796 views

On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:58:04 -0500, Liquid-Nitrogen Software <nitrogen_069 at
HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:

>>I love that construct. It allows exit from any depth of for without any
>>knowledge of what that depth is. Now if we can have something of the
>>form of
>>
>>while(A) x = 1 do
>>  while(B) y = 2 do
>>    while(C) z = 3 do
>>
>>        ...
>>
>>       exit(A)
>>
>>    end while
>>  end while
>>end while
>
>
>how about:
>
>    while:A x = 1 do
>      while y = 2 do
>        while z = 3 do
>
>            ...
>
>           exit:A
>
>        end while
>      end while
>    end while
>
>--
>That way it won't break existing code, and you get a choice of only naming
>the loops that you realy need to.
>
>you can then either use:
>       while / exit
> or
>       while:label / exit:label
>
>I think that seems like quite a tidy way to fix that problem.
>
>-Mark.

Funny you should ask, I was planning to retain the original forms and
my purpose was to avoid adding labels. The less we ask for, the more
likely we are to get it. Besides, I don't really want labels. They would
create a demand for goto...again and that I consider anathema.

There should be a slightly better syntax that would preserve those goals,
but my tired old brain just won't kick one out right now.

Somebody else take a shot.

Everett L.(Rett) Williams
rett at gvtc.com