Re: Re: Labeled Breaks (not the G-word)
| From: | Stanislav Malyshev | Date: | Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:27:54 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Labeled Breaks (not the G-word) | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-20839@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
SG>>random than a catch statement. It's a deliberate, directed statement, and
SG>>one which *does* clean up after itself despite your unfounded claims to the
SG>>contrary.
My objection to goto is based on the fact that it allows to randomly
transfer control between arbitary points of script, which can (and
will) easily lead to spaghetti code and actually promotes this style of
writing code. It has nothing to do with goto cleaning or not cleaning
anything.
SG>>But if we're going to make charged statements, then how about this? I
SG>>suspect that your objection to goto lies in the "problem" such a construct
SG>>makes for accelerators (Zend Accelerator specifically). If that's your
SG>>objection then at least state so honestly.
Please drop this tinfoil-hat conspiracy baloney, really. It's not funny.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Products Engineer
stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/ +972-3-6139665 ext.115