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

Zeev Suraski wrote: > Given that, I don't see the fact that this limitation is artificially > imposed, implementation-wise, to have any significance at all, either > way. The discussion should be on whether we should allow this > functionality or not. All I am trying to say is that there are not technical reasons for restricting the functionality. > Retry-on-error appears to me, at least upon first sight, as an excellent > example of where goto should not be used. That's why we have functions > and loops. And that's just one example of why we shouldn't give the > users the weapons to shoot themselves in the foot. Because they most > certainly *will* :) Well, if the decision is to design the language for the lowest common denominator, then let's forget about this feature all together. Perhaps we need to reconsider some of our other planned features with this in mind as well. If it comes down to count of +1/-1 about this feature, I am +1 for unrestricted forward/backward jumps and -1 for restricted version. Ilia