Re: PHP 5.1

On Monday 06 June 2005 14:37, Derick Rethans wrote: > On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > > MR>>expose the ugliness of what would _appear_ to be a handy feature. I > > MR>>don't pack any weight on this list so if someone with a -1 on this > > MR>>feature would like to kick it up to -2 I'd appreciate it. > > > > I'm not sure why goto should be needed after many years of successful > > life without it. I think parametrized break/continue takes care of all > > cases when I would need goto in C, so I think goto is not needed. In any > > case, goto in/out of the control block in an invitation to hell, since it > > would mess up a lot of assumptions and can lead to crashes/leaks. So I > > personally don't particularly like this idea. > > We're only talking about a goto that: > - can only jump to a static label > - can only jump inside the current scope > > With a parameterized break/continue you still can't just to the "end" of > your function to do clean ups (unless you wrap it in a control block > which is ugly and already possible anyway). I think it's OK. All objections agains 'goto' are not based on it's existence but on it's use. So restricting the use to a static label in the current scope is fine. If you don't like using it (as most of us have been taught in our CS lectures) - simply don't use it. +1 for me. > > Derick > > -- > Derick Rethans > http://derickrethans.nl | > http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org -- Cyberly yours, Petar Nedyalkov Devoted Orbitel Fan :-) PGP ID: 7AE45436 PGP Public Key: http://bu.orbitel.bg/pgp/bu.asc PGP Fingerprint: 7923 8D52 B145 02E8 6F63 8BDA 2D3F 7C0B 7AE4 5436

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature]