Eric Roode wrote:
>
> sub func1
> {
> func2();
> }
>
> sub func2
> {
> last func1;
> }
>
> ? Imho, it is a BAD THING for functions to know who called them,
> and to vary their behavior accordingly.
Yes. This is a serious downside to the proposal, even though it was
intended to allow last'ing out of some other kind of nested scope, e.g.
sub func1
{
while(1)
{
last func1;
}
}
But if we keep the block types distinct, as I now believe we should,
one would simply use C<return> there...
--
John Porter
We're building the house of the future together.
