Re: New keyword added: continue
Kat wrote:
>
> Depends on how it's done. In some languages, the loop is nearly a second
> program,
> and leaving it's code space clears everything that's not in the proc/funct
> it's
> nested in. Such "nearly a 2nd program" also justified nesting functions and
> procedures inside other functions of procedures, making the internal proc/func
> local to the proc/func it was nested in. I don't know how Eu does it.
Yes, that's how it would be done, but in your example, there were things like
endcase, endfor, etc... those are outside the loop.
> > #2 with the for loop, it suffers the same fate as the case statement. Sure,
> > on the first for loop you can use :retry, :end, :next, :restart, but then on
> > subsequent for loops in the same context (in top level or inside a
> > function),
> > you would have to get creative in your naming... :end2, :next2, :restart2,
> > etc...
> > Then have 1 for loop that is nested in another, and then later in the
> > function
> > you add a new for loop. Then, as time goes on, you add a for loop at the
> > beginning
> > of the function. Now, your first for loop is named :end3, :restart3, and
> > your
> > second is just :end, :restart, etc... and an inner is :restart3, etc... It
> > begins
> > to get pretty confusing.
>
> OMGess, do you really program like that?
>
Do I have nested loops? I sure do. Do I sometimes go back and add a new loop to
a function? I sure do. That's all the above was showing, but using your example
of goto. Because it is such a mess, I was using it as a case against using a goto
as you described.
> > So, while I personally think a goto statement is a good thing, I do not
> > think
> > it is a replacement for exit, continue and a case statement.
>
> I nominate it again for exit, continue, restart, next, retry (not the error
> handling retry), or any other keyword where the purpose is to get around
> intervening
> code. In your example of nested loops, i have no clue where an exit would
> goto,
> and in most cases i bet it would not goto where i wanted. There's been
> numerous
> posts showing an exit not traveling far enough, leading to more flag tests to
> see if it's necessary to exit some more. One goto would have been enough, and
> quite clear, mentioning a descriptive target at both ends of the jump, and
> easy
> to find with text search in an editor.
An exit and continue could be modified pretty easy to do something like this:
for a = 1 to 5 do
for b = 1 to 5 do
for c = 1 to 5 do
exit 2 -- exit 2 loops
end for
-- never reached
puts(1, "Hello!\n")
end for
printf(1, "%d,", {a})
end for
Output of above is 1,2,3,4,5. The same could be done for continue. Before
enabling goto to exit a loop, I would nominate the above construct. If a
parameter was not given to exit or continue, it would simply exit 1 loop as
normal.
However, can we please move goto discussions to the new Goto? thread? Thanks.
--
Jeremy Cowgar
http://jeremy.cowgar.com
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
