Re: [ZEND-ENGINE-CVS] cvs: ZendEngine2 / zend_compile.c zend_compile.hzend_globals.h zend_language_parser.y /tests break_label01.phpt
break_label02.phptbreak_label03.phpt break_label04.phpt break_label05.phpt break_label06.phpt
| From: | Marcus Boerger | Date: | Mon, 06 Mar 2006 07:48:21 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [ZEND-ENGINE-CVS] cvs: ZendEngine2 / zend_compile.c zend_compile.hzend_globals.h zend_language_parser.y /tests break_label01.phpt break_label02.phptbreak_label03.phpt break_label04.phpt break_label05.phpt break_label06.phpt |
||
| References: | 1 2 | Groups: | php.zend-engine.cvs |
| Request: | Send a blank email to php-zend-engine-cvs+get-4678@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Hello Dmitry,
Monday, March 6, 2006, 8:19:50 AM, you wrote:
> Hi Markus,
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Marcus Boerger [mailto:helly@php.net]
>> Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 2:22 PM
>> To: Dmitry Stogov
>> Cc: 'Andi Gutmans'; 'Rasmus Lerdorf'; Derick Rethans;
>> zend-engine-cvs@lists.php.net; Sara Golemon; 'Edin Kadribasic'
>> Subject: Re: [ZEND-ENGINE-CVS] cvs: ZendEngine2 /
>> zend_compile.c zend_compile.hzend_globals.h
>> zend_language_parser.y /tests break_label01.phpt
>> break_label02.phptbreak_label03.phpt break_label04.phpt
>> break_label05.phpt break_label06.phpt
>>
>>
>> Hello Dmitry,
>>
>> Sunday, March 5, 2006, 11:46:38 AM, you wrote:
>>
>> > Guys,
>>
>> > The committed patch was posted into @iternals and discussed at
>> > December or January. It is not based on PDM's decision, and have
>> > nothing common with goto semantic.
>>
>> > THE PATCH REUSES JAVA SYNTAX AND SYMANTIC.
>>
>> But we are not Java and we don't want to be and we share
>> little Java syntax semantics. Actually only the keywords
>> 'interface' and 'final' and the fact that one has to specify
>> visibility for every member of a class. And all of those are
>> late additions to php in 5. For the rest of php we share c
>> syntax and semantics. Thus adding any of those strange java
>> workarounds makes out a very confusing php. Furthermore it
>> means that when adding some java syntax that exists in C/C++
>> in a different way we head in a wrong direction.
> Reusing "break label" syntax with symantic that differ from Java and other
> languages will confuse much more people.
> I am speaking about PDM's decision. And C++ hasn't "break label" syntax so
> nothing to confuse.
But they have labels and that was my pont.
> We already discussed this patch and nobody except Zeev was against it.
Out of curiosity, was anybody pro?
Best regards,
Marcus