Guys,
Laughter has nothing to do with it.
However, as discussed between those who attended the meeting in
Paris, goto earned its bad connotations for a reason. It was agreed
that providing a general-purpose C-goto equivalent is not a good idea
because it *will* very quickly lead to spaghetti coding styles. We
also came to the conclusion that the main use case that is not
covered by PHP today is that of 'centralized' error recovery, which
requires forward jumping only (if it wasn't for that use case, I
think we would have had consensus not to add any type of goto at all).
So, the logical conclusion appeared to be:
1. A forward-jumping construct only, to avoid giving users too much
ammo to shoot themselves in the foot with spaghetti coding.
2. A construct which is not named 'goto', not because of the bad
connotations (that's actually a good reason to keep it named 'goto'),
but in order to make it clear that it's not goto, so that nobody
expects it to behave like goto in other languages.
I'm not sold on reusing the break construct for that, since we're not
really breaking, and I kind of like Ilia's "jump" idea. Another
possibility would be reusing 'continue', which makes a bit more
English sense, even though it's not very similar to continue's semantics.
Zeev
At 21:42 24/11/2005, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello Wez,
i already see the whole world laughing at us :-)
marcus
Thursday, November 24, 2005, 5:43:48 PM, you wrote:
> Agreed; I see no reason to call it break (that makes it even more
> confusing), and limiting jumps to one direction only is dumb; there is
> no technical reason to do that.
> Perl has a "goto" keyword, but it's pronounced "magic goto". We can
> have a "goto" keyword and pronounce it "limited goto".
> Bad feelings and anticipated misuse are not good enough reasons to
> make this feature obscure.
> So, I'm +1 on the patch with sane names and removed restrictions;
> Thanks Sara and Dmitry :)
> --Wez.
> On 11/24/05, Edin Kadribasic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
>> > Derick Rethans wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>- we wanted to prevent spagetti code which you can do by jumping up:
>> >>
>> >> "Similarly restricting the construct so that you can only jump
>> >> down should satisfy people who do not want the ability
to jump all over
>> >> the place."
>> >
>> >
>> > IMO making this limitation puts a serious cramp of the functionality and
>> > the limiter should be removed.
>>
>> I agree, I see no need for this limit.
>>
>> Edin
>>
Best regards,
Marcus
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
