As I said, the syntax is quite elegant and the patch isn't too bad either.
However, I do suggest we only add it if people are really convinced
that it'll be used.
Reflection falls into a different category in my opinion, because it
actually allows you to do stuff you couldn't really do before... It's
a bad comparison.
Andi
At 03:53 PM 2/18/2006, Derick Rethans wrote:
Perhaps not many will use it, that doesn't mean it's useful. I don't
have much use of the Reflection stuff either, nor do I see its general
usefulness. That doesn't mean I am against having it in PHP because it
is useful. In the previous thread we already saw where the labelled
break was useful, and I would like to see the proposed patch committed.
Derick
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006, Andi Gutmans wrote:
> Yeah but my point was that even people for who it isn't scary
(the devs) don't
> use it very much :) It's just something which isn't needed very often. So
> we're wasting lots of bandwidth on something which not many will
use anyway :)
>
> Andi
>
> At 02:54 PM 2/18/2006, Steph Fox wrote:
> >Agreed it's not used very much. That's because people like me think it's
> >scary :) and that's _exactly_ what I was trying to say.
> >
> >----- Original Message ----- From: "Andi Gutmans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "Steph Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
> >Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 12:48 AM
> >Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] True labelled breaks
> >
> >
> > >It's just something which to begin with isn't used that much.
> > >Grep'ed phpweb/ for it and found 0 occurrences of break n; and I believe
> > >the people developing it would be the ones who would know how to use it.
> > >
> > >Andi
> > >
> > >At 02:33 PM 2/18/2006, Steph Fox wrote:
> > > >I personally find working with numbers difficult, which is
why I'm wholly
> > > >in support of this patch.
> > > >
> > > >I doubt I'm the only PHP user with that issue, due to the
'ease of use'
> > > >that allows people with no history of computer science to write useful
> > > >scripts (for which, thank you all). But I wouldn't expect a
great deal of
> > > >sympathy on that point from CS graduates.
> > > >
> > > >nb I think implementing goto/equivalent itself is a fairly
bad idea - I
> > > >appear to be in the minority on that issue. But I don't see
any problem
> > > >with introducing labels, I just see it as a more user-friendly way of
> > > >allowing nested breaks.
> > > >
> > > >Am I very wrong?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Andi Gutmans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >To: "Steph Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "internals"
<internals@lists.php.net>
> > > >Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 9:30 PM
> > > >Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] True labelled breaks
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >I think that in 1997 when break/continue n where
implemented it would
> > > > >have been a nice idea, but at this stage except for being
more elegant
> > > > >than break/continue n it doesn't truly add anything
substantial to PHP
> > > > >(and as you already mentioned it's orthogonal to the goto
discussion).
> > > > >I think having more than 1 way of doing the same thing, in
this case,
> > > > >might just end up confusing people developing with PHP
(i.e. the Perl
> > > > >way :)
> > > > >
> > > > >Just for the record I am coming at this from an open mind.
Dmitry did
> > > > >spend time on this patch, etc...
> > > > >
> > > > >I'd recommend to bed it once and for all.
> > > > >
> > > > >At 09:16 AM 2/18/2006, Steph Fox wrote:
> > > > > >Guys and guyess,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Sara and Dmitry's patch to introduce labelled breaks was
discussed on
> > > > > >internals@ ever-so-briefly at the beginning of December, but there
> > > > > >was never any decision made over it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Given that practically everyone who survived the preceding GOTO
> > > > > >discussion seemed to think it was a good idea at the
time, could you
> > > > > >please re-visit it, evaluate it, discuss it (as opposed to talking
> > > > > >about GOTO, which is unrelated) and either OK it or put
it to bed for
> > > > > >once and for all?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Relevant summary is at
> > > > > >http://www.zend.com/zend/week/week265.php#Heading3
> > > > > >Relevant patch is at http://www.zend.com/zend/week/pat/index.php
> > > > > >
> > > > > >And if it's worth anything, +1 from me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >- Steph
> > > > > >--
> > > > > >PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> > > > > >To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> > > > >
> > > > >--
> > > > >PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> > > > >To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> > > > >
> > > > >
> >>>>__________ NOD32 1.1380 (20060125) Information __________
> > > > >
> > > > >This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> > > > >http://www.eset.com
> > >
> > >--
> > >PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> > >To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> > >
> > >
> >>__________ NOD32 1.1380 (20060125) Information __________
> > >
> > >This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> > >http://www.eset.com
> > >
>
>
--
Derick Rethans
http://derickrethans.nl | http://ez.no | http://xdebug.org
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
