Re: voting on GOTO
Chris Bensler wrote:
>
> What could you do with a goto that could not be done otherwise? Optimization
> is not a good enough reason, since I doubt there would be very much
> performance
> gain if any. It may even hinder the language performance in general.
>
> Consider if goto even belongs in Eu's repertoire, regardless if it's useful
> or not, as long as we can still achieve the same thing through different
> means.
> Does it actually lend itself to Eu's characteristics? How will it affect the
> language internally?
>
> What kind of priority would you give this feature request?
> I can think of a dozen things off-hand that I would rather see implemented
> first.
>
> I'd say nay if we are voting on it and these goto discussions will end, but
> that's like hoping time will stop ;)
>
> Rather than a vote, I'd suggest compiling and summarizing all the previous
> discussions
> on goto and put in an official feature request on sourceforge.
Too late for that, i suspect v4 is days from release. The fact is, goto was
proven to work with Eu v2, Eu v2.5 and Eu v4. Code has been written, in some
cases, for over 6 years already! So you can consider this an already fulfilled
feature request, and deleted off the request list. Other things on your request
list are also done, i just don't know all your list, or all that's done, or i'd
let you know about them. But like your requests, or anyone's requests, no one is
forced to use any of them. The vote is more like "will you finally let the
keyword be left in the official version and be used?".
Kat
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
