Re: Apoc 4: The skip keyword
skip was uncomfortable when I read it (I at first took it to mean skip over the following rather than skip to the following), but I find nobreak also a bit strange. How about proceed? If we mean fall-through, why invent a new term? Why not use the intent: Cfall_through? Wow, keyword with underscore. I like proceed much better. Tomas.
Re: Apoc 4: The skip keyword
Thus it was written in the epistle of Dave Hartnoll,
Oh, one other tweak. The RFC proposes to overload next
to mean fall through to the next case. I don't think
this is wise, since we'll often want to use loop controls
within a switch statement. Instead, I think we should
use skip to do that. (To be read as Skip to the next
statement.)
I would like to suggest a different keyword that does not imply some
`jumping' action. For years, I have used `nobreak' in my C code when I want
to indicate that a case fall-through is intentional:
#define nobreak
switch(...) {
case 1: ...;
nobreak; /* intentional fall-through */
case 2: ...;
break;
case 3: ...;
}
Does anyone agree that `nobreak' reads much better than `skip'?
skip was uncomfortable when I read it (I at first took it to mean skip over
the following rather than skip to the following), but I find nobreak also
a bit strange. How about proceed?
Ted
--
Ted Ashton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | From the Tom Swifty collection:
Southern Adventist University| I'm knitting a sweater for my guppy, said
Deep thought to be found at | Tom wolfishly.
http://www.southern.edu/~ashted |
Re: Apoc 4: The skip keyword
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Ted Ashton wrote: Thus it was written in the epistle of Dave Hartnoll, Oh, one other tweak. The RFC proposes to overload next to mean fall through to the next case. I don't think [...] I would like to suggest a different keyword that does not imply some `jumping' action. For years, I have used `nobreak' in my C code when I want to indicate that a case fall-through is intentional: [...] skip was uncomfortable when I read it (I at first took it to mean skip over the following rather than skip to the following), but I find nobreak also a bit strange. How about proceed? Ted First, a 'me too' to everything Ted said. Second, to me 'nobreak' is not sufficiently visually distinct from 'break'. Dave Storrs
RE: Apoc 4: The skip keyword
switch(...) {
case 1: ...;
nobreak; /* intentional fall-through */
case 2: ...;
break;
case 3: ...;
}
Does anyone agree that `nobreak' reads much better than `skip'?
skip was uncomfortable when I read it (I at first took it to mean
skip over the following rather than skip to the following), but
I find nobreak also a bit strange. How about proceed?
If we mean fall-through, why invent a new term? Why not use the
intent: Cfall_through?
Dave
Apoc 4: The skip keyword
Oh, one other tweak. The RFC proposes to overload next
to mean fall through to the next case. I don't think
this is wise, since we'll often want to use loop controls
within a switch statement. Instead, I think we should
use skip to do that. (To be read as Skip to the next
statement.)
I would like to suggest a different keyword that does not imply some
`jumping' action. For years, I have used `nobreak' in my C code when I want
to indicate that a case fall-through is intentional:
#define nobreak
switch(...) {
case 1: ...;
nobreak; /* intentional fall-through */
case 2: ...;
break;
case 3: ...;
}
Does anyone agree that `nobreak' reads much better than `skip'?
Dave.
Re: Apoc 4?
* Bryan C. Warnock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [20 Jan 2002 05:33]: On Saturday 19 January 2002 12:20, iain truskett wrote: [...] It's a worry. Also odd is that Slashdot hasn't picked it up yet. Developers' section. /me fossicks through configuration. Ah. Didn't have 'Collapse Sections' enabled. This also explains why there's only 4 comments. Time I removed more of the crud sections. Cheers for that. -- iain. http://eh.org/~koschei/
Re: Apoc 4?
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 12:33:48 -0500, Will Coleda wrote: http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2002/01/15/apo4.html David Whipp wrote: Michael G Schwern wrote: Reading this in Apoc 4 ... I looked on http://dev.perl.org/perl6/apocalypse/: no sign of Apoc4. Where do I find this latest installment? I thought I had just missed it... but there's no trace of it in the archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Or any other perl6 list. Don't tell me that is normal. -- Bart.
Re: Apoc 4?
* Bart Lateur ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [20 Jan 2002 03:56]: On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 12:33:48 -0500, Will Coleda wrote: http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2002/01/15/apo4.html [...] I thought I had just missed it... but there's no trace of it in the archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Or any other perl6 list. Don't tell me that is normal. It's a worry. Also odd is that Slashdot hasn't picked it up yet. I don't know about most people, but I saw the announcement on http://use.perl.org/ cheers, -- iain. http://eh.org/~koschei/
Re: Apoc 4?
On Saturday 19 January 2002 12:20, iain truskett wrote: * Bart Lateur ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [20 Jan 2002 03:56]: On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 12:33:48 -0500, Will Coleda wrote: http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2002/01/15/apo4.html [...] I thought I had just missed it... but there's no trace of it in the archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Or any other perl6 list. Don't tell me that is normal. It's a worry. Also odd is that Slashdot hasn't picked it up yet. Developers' section. -- Bryan C. Warnock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Apoc 4?
At 1:14 PM -0500 1/19/02, Bryan C. Warnock wrote: On Saturday 19 January 2002 12:20, iain truskett wrote: * Bart Lateur ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [20 Jan 2002 03:56]: On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 12:33:48 -0500, Will Coleda wrote: http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2002/01/15/apo4.html [...] I thought I had just missed it... but there's no trace of it in the archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Or any other perl6 list. Don't tell me that is normal. It's a worry. Also odd is that Slashdot hasn't picked it up yet. Developers' section. No wonder nobody noticed. There seems to be an awful lot of actually interesting stuff over there. How atypically slashdot... -- Dan --it's like this--- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
Re: Apoc 4?
http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2002/01/15/apo4.html David Whipp wrote: Michael G Schwern wrote: Reading this in Apoc 4 ... I looked on http://dev.perl.org/perl6/apocalypse/: no sign of Apoc4. Where do I find this latest installment? Dave.
Re: Apoc 4?
Michael G Schwern wrote: Reading this in Apoc 4 ... I looked on http://dev.perl.org/perl6/apocalypse/: no sign of Apoc4. Where do I find this latest installment? www.perl.com. dev.perl.org must just not have a link yet. -- Dan --it's like this--- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
