Re: Re: Labeled Breaks (not the G-word)

Hello Wez, i already see the whole world laughing at us :-) marcus Thursday, November 24, 2005, 5:43:48 PM, you wrote: > Agreed; I see no reason to call it break (that makes it even more > confusing), and limiting jumps to one direction only is dumb; there is > no technical reason to do that. > Perl has a "goto" keyword, but it's pronounced "magic goto". We can > have a "goto" keyword and pronounce it "limited goto". > Bad feelings and anticipated misuse are not good enough reasons to > make this feature obscure. > So, I'm +1 on the patch with sane names and removed restrictions; > Thanks Sara and Dmitry :) > --Wez. > On 11/24/05, Edin Kadribasic <edink@emini.dk> wrote: >> Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: >> > Derick Rethans wrote: >> > >> > >> >>- we wanted to prevent spagetti code which you can do by jumping up: >> >> >> >> "Similarly restricting the construct so that you can only jump >> >> down should satisfy people who do not want the ability to jump all over >> >> the place." >> > >> > >> > IMO making this limitation puts a serious cramp of the functionality and >> > the limiter should be removed. >> >> I agree, I see no need for this limit. >> >> Edin >> Best regards, Marcus