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

LS>>discussions over the past months it seemed to me that the "goto all the way" LS>>camp was fine with limiting jumping to the current scope (function/method) That doesn't do much. That's like saying "access not to all memory but only memory space of the process". Sure, you can't just jump random places along all the code - but jumping random places inside same op-array is not very good still. LS>>which makes it much more obvious compared to exceptions in my book. Exceptions allow passing control to specific well-defined points with stack unwinding, etc. What this has to do with goto? LS>>Eitherway its quite obvious that labeled breaks in loops are much easier to LS>>read over "break 3" kinda stuff we require now. So even such a limited That I agree. Labeled break seems to be a sane proposal, and does not substantially differ from constant break as it is now, except that one doesn't have to count levels manually. LS>>"goto" aka "labeled break" construct is obviously needed quite dearly LS>>and But goto and labeled break is totally different. Labelled break is bound to a control structure and is a part of it. goto is not. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/ +972-3-6139665 ext.115