Hi Marijn
Thanks, that all makes sense.
Apart from "complicated" blocks, the other case I've got is
some_iter_func(..) {
if (some_condition) { ret; } // meaning 'cont'
...
}
Where my block is returning (). It sounds like that case will be handled
nicely when 'cont' starts behaving as if you were in a loop, so that's
great.
Cheers
Grahame
On 27 March 2012 18:52, Marijn Haverbeke <[email protected]> wrote:
> See issue [1] for some discussion. The reason was that A) people are
> bound to expect ret to return from the outer function, which we don't
> support in most cases, and B) I am in the process of adding a case
> (for loops on top of blocks) where we *do* support returning out of
> the outer function from a block, and treating ret differently in
> different kinds of blocks seems like a bad idea.
>
> When going over the existing code that was using ret in blocks, I did
> find two cases that had to be transformed with a big, right-drifting
> if, but the rest were loops that would have benefited from proper
> ret/cont/break support. So yeah, it's not all roses, but I'd argue
> that huge blocks aren't very good style, and they might benefit from
> being factored into a few top-level functions.
>
> [1]: https://github.com/mozilla/rust/issues/1619
>
> Best,
> Marijn
>
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
