Is it good idea (and is it possible) to disallow GOTO in main() ?
Andrey
Quoting Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, 2004-08-18 at 21:34, BDKR wrote:
Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Exceptions are not an OOP feature per-se. They are a means for out-of-
Alan Knowles wrote:
- compile time hooking (no dynamic goto targets)
That kind of makes them useless for writing parsers, which was one of
the justifications of them.
How that? C doesn't have dynamic goto targets either
but still its used for parsing lot ...
--
Hartmut Holzgraefe [EMAIL
At 04:28 19/08/2004, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Exceptions are not an OOP feature per-se. They are a means for out-of-
band error signalling. (Of course they use objects for that which could
be regarded as a turn-off by non-OOP-eople :-)
they can also be a turn-off for
if you look at the bison/flex, they both use switch/case - the parsers I
use, both generate code like this, however they ended up using variable
functions, as even the overhead of the function calls is faster than the
large switch/case called repeatidly.. (this is ideally what dynamic
goto's
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
Alan Knowles wrote:
- compile time hooking (no dynamic goto targets)
That kind of makes them useless for writing parsers, which was one of
the justifications of them.
How that? C doesn't have dynamic goto targets either
but still
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Alan Knowles wrote:
How that? C doesn't have dynamic goto targets either
but still its used for parsing lot ...
That depends on what you consider C.
Try compiling this with your favourite C compiler:
Every day you lern something new ...
looks like i'm already done with that
At 12:21 19/08/2004, Sascha Schumann wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
Alan Knowles wrote:
- compile time hooking (no dynamic goto targets)
That kind of makes them useless for writing parsers, which was one of
the justifications of
Derick Rethans wrote:
heh? If you're writing procedural code, you do not WANT to use OO
features in there, as it makes your code no longer procedural.
Exceptions are not an OOP feature per-se. They are a means for out-of-
band error signalling. (Of course they use objects for that which could
Hello Sebastian,
Wednesday, August 18, 2004, 11:58:33 PM, you wrote:
Derick Rethans wrote:
heh? If you're writing procedural code, you do not WANT to use OO
features in there, as it makes your code no longer procedural.
Exceptions are not an OOP feature per-se. They are a means for
Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Exceptions are not an OOP feature per-se. They are a means for out-of-
band error signalling. (Of course they use objects for that which could
be regarded as a turn-off by non-OOP-eople :-)
they can also be a turn-off for performance anxious
On Wed, 2004-08-18 at 21:34, BDKR wrote:
Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Exceptions are not an OOP feature per-se. They are a means for out-of-
band error signalling. (Of course they use objects for that which could
be regarded as a turn-off by non-OOP-eople :-)
Marcus Boerger wrote:
Not exactly. In most languages exceptions are objects but in other
languages like C++ you can pass whatever you want as amn exception.
I made the mistake of mixing the general case (out-of-band error
signalling) and the special case (Exception objects in PHP).
--
Sebastian
- compile time hooking (no dynamic goto targets)
That kind of makes them useless for writing parsers, which was one of
the justifications of them.
Regards
Alan
- goto can only jump to labels within the same scope
- goto could only jump out of blocks and not into
Cheers,
Rob.
--
On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 00:10, Alan Knowles wrote:
- compile time hooking (no dynamic goto targets)
That kind of makes them useless for writing parsers, which was one of
the justifications of them.
Hmmm you're right. I forgot that in C when doing parsers it's
commonplace to map the
If anyone in this debate hasn't read my independent request for goto and
break label;, I would appreciate it if you would:
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=29287
I fully support the implementation of goto. Line labels will also
immensely improve the break statement, which currently requires you
the question here?
it is said:
Internals list
A medium volume list for those who want to __help out__ with the development
of PHP
From: tinys xuefer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] GOTO operator
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:16:54 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Originating-IP
Hello tinys,
that's the perfect place to mail such things
regards
marcus
Wednesday, August 4, 2004, 12:07:46 PM, you wrote:
i'm current trying:
MAKE_STD_ZVAL(return_value);
*return_value = **zstr;
/*ZVAL_ADDREF(*zstr);*/
if (PZVAL_IS_REF(return_value)) {
On Wed, 4 Aug 2004, Marcus Boerger wrote:
Hello tinys,
that's the perfect place to mail such things
But make sure to use a good subject... (and don't piggy back on other
threads with a new topic) please
Derick
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit:
thanks
it's my mistake, i didn't want to reply this thread but reply to my own one
From: Derick Rethans [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Marcus Boerger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: tinys xuefer [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] GOTO operator
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 12:51:56 +0200 (CEST)
MIME
Quoting DvDmanDT [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
And my point still remains. There are an awful lot of PHP programmers out
there who really don't need an extra way to write for(), or while(), or
do..while(). It makes maintenance work harder when you have a mixture of
styles in there to cope with.
Andi Gutmans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think we should be using computed targets. It'd be more of a
nightmare than sexy. I prefer doing as much at compile-time as possible and
I don't think that allowing indirect goto's would lead to anything than
chaos. Most arguments in favor of
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andi Gutmans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think we should be using computed targets. It'd be more of a
nightmare than sexy. I prefer doing as much at compile-time as possible and
I don't think that allowing indirect goto's would lead to
If you really, really, really wanted to do such a thing, you could still
do:
eval(goto foo$bar;);
to get the same effect, right?
Hmm, depends on how it's implemented. It will most likely not work I
guess.
Nope... eval()'d code is in a separate op_array from the code it's eval()'d
It can't be doable because it makes writing an optimizer impossible.
-sterling
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:54:28 -0700, Sara Golemon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you really, really, really wanted to do such a thing, you could still
do:
eval(goto foo$bar;);
to get the same effect,
Sara Golemon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you really, really, really wanted to do such a thing, you could still
do:
eval(goto foo$bar;);
to get the same effect, right?
Hmm, depends on how it's implemented. It will most likely not work I
guess.
Nope... eval()'d code is in a
Out of curiosity, I wonder which other features would similarly not work
when
eval()'ed...???
Anything involving unbalanced braces would bork:
eval('if ($a 5) {');
do_stuff();
}
As would any looping initializer like this:
eval('foreach($foo as $bar)');
do_itteration($bar);
While I
On Aug 3, 2004, at 3:09 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sara Golemon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you really, really, really wanted to do such a thing, you could
still
do:
eval(goto foo$bar;);
to get the same effect, right?
Hmm, depends on how it's implemented. It will most likely not work I
Hello,
ALthough I'm in support of a local scoped static GOTO, I did not see
myself using it much.
However, I find myself this afternoon implementing a huge
do { switch { case: break 2; } while (true) structure.
It would be much cleaner to use goto in this case.
--
Best regards,
I'm +1 on goto with static labels.
regardless of whether it ends up in PHP or not I think Sara deserves a
gold star alone for the large number of very value info/explainations
she continues to post here. If I had to name one person off the list
from whose posts I had gained more insight
Jochem: +1 :)
-Original Message-
From: Jochem Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 04 August 2004 01:22
To: Sara Golemon
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] GOTO operator
I'm +1 on goto with static labels.
regardless of whether it ends up in PHP or not I think Sara
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004, Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 15:45 31/07/2004, Derick Rethans wrote:
Exceptions are an OO thing, and it makes NO sense to use them in
procedural code. Goto is a good thing here.
Can you explain why it makes no sense to use them in procedural code?
heh? If you're writing
At 11:22 02/08/2004, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004, Zeev Suraski wrote:
At 15:45 31/07/2004, Derick Rethans wrote:
Exceptions are an OO thing, and it makes NO sense to use them in
procedural code. Goto is a good thing here.
Can you explain why it makes no sense to use them in
I just woke up but I think this can be solved with one do..while and using
bitfield for example. so when you break, just check the bitfield what to
clean up.
Indeed, but the original point was to make it easier to read.. Now, what
will make most sense to a newbie, this or the goto example this
My opinion would be that goto isn't needed with the do..while()
statement..
But on the other hand.. Neither for(), while() or do..while() would be
needed with goto, would they?
I learned a language called PHP. It contains for(), while() and
do..while(). I've been writing scripts that
My point still remains.. Goto is powerful, even if not needed.. There's
about one time I would use goto, which could easily be done with two
do..while().. The funny thing is, that I didn't do it that way, cause I
though it looked ugly.
--
// DvDmanDT
MSN: dvdmandt¤hotmail.com
Mail:
My point still remains.. Goto is powerful, even if not needed.. There's
about one time I would use goto, which could easily be done with two
do..while().. The funny thing is, that I didn't do it that way, cause I
though it looked ugly.
And my point still remains. There are an awful lot of
And my point still remains. There are an awful lot of PHP programmers out
there who really don't need an extra way to write for(), or while(), or
do..while(). It makes maintenance work harder when you have a mixture of
styles in there to cope with.
I don't for a moment believe that Sara
My point was to say it's powerful, as powerful as all those, not that it
could replace them.. I would still use while(), do..while() and for() the
times they are intended for.. I'm sure most of the people would..
There are
however situations where goto is what makes sense..
I'm still waiting
On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 23:08, Steph wrote:
My point was to say it's powerful, as powerful as all those, not that it
could replace them.. I would still use while(), do..while() and for() the
times they are intended for.. I'm sure most of the people would..
There are
however situations
At 15:45 31/07/2004, Derick Rethans wrote:
Exceptions are an OO thing, and it makes NO sense to use them in
procedural code. Goto is a good thing here.
Can you explain why it makes no sense to use them in procedural code? It
makes perfect sense for me, and they render 100.0% of the examples
Michael Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Another possibility, possibly more concise, would be to introduce a
scoped keyword (or similar) in the spirit of global:
scoped $foo;
might make $foo's destructor be called at the end of the current scope
(whether
--- Sterling Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
also, when you start quoting djikstra in a php context, you've
lost.
goto is fine, fight the power!
s/quoting djikstra/mentioning state machines/
also
s/quoting djikstra/agonising about the algorithmic efficiency of
goto versus switch/
Not
if you have a look at a parser generated for PHP (eg. this - quite large
file)
http://cvs.php.net/co.php/pear/HTML_Template_Flexy/Flexy/Tokenizer.php?r=1.51
The original Java/C# stuff does switch/case, In PHP due to the fact you
have to evaluate each switch, it used to be quite slow,
I ended up
At 09:24 PM 7/30/2004 -0700, Sara Golemon wrote:
c) I don't think you are creating the necessary switch_free's and
other
frees when jumping out of a scope unexpectedly.
Entirely possible. The tests I've run don't complain but that doesn't
mean
something bad isn't happening.
Thanks for
how about: break label; ?
just a thought
From: Andi Gutmans [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Sara Golemon [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] GOTO operator
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 00:13:51 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from pb1.pair.com ([216.92.131.4
Hi Sara,
I can see where I can similfy certain code on a project I coded which
would reduce some major ugly code. Sure I could have rewritten the
code in c but I prefered having something easier to maintain in the
early hours of the morning.
Drop me a line where I can find the updated patches
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, Aidan Lister wrote:
Develop some wacky construct that you have to use instead... that way, it
will scare off novice users, and expert programmers will HAVE to know what
they're doing and know that they really need it before they have to
implement it. It's along the
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, Sara Golemon wrote:
I wrote up a patch for implementing gotos in php scripts a couple months ago
as an exercise in working with the Zend engine. I put it aside assuming
noone would actually want it, but Wez and Ilia convinced me to post it for
consideration:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
On Friday 30 July 2004 00:43, Paul G wrote:
[snip]
This is exactly the kind of code that makes me miss goto so much for error
handling.
I agree with that, +1 on goto from me, but still... only constant labels
please!
Derick
--
PHP Internals -
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, Jeff Moore wrote:
On Jul 30, 2004, at 4:33 PM, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
Jeff Moore wrote:
Where did the if statements go? do_stuff(), do_more_stuff(), and
do_even_more_stuff() should throw exceptions rather than return
boolean error indicators.
Now imagine
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, Sara Golemon wrote:
*this* implementation of GOTO requires a hash lookup, however it could be
reworked to use the same backpatching as the ZEND_JMP ops used with
conditional statements. While doing that would speed execution time by
skipping the hash lookup, it'd slow
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 10:31 PM 7/30/2004 +0200, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
Andi Gutmans wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say it cannot be done with goto emulation (and abuse of a feature
on par with switch(true)). What I mean is that using the real thing makes
code more readable
Hiho,
Paul G wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Andi Gutmans [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] GOTO operator
--- snip ---
I'm sorry but I just don't understand the great need for goto in PHP
Sara Golemon wrote:
Thanks for the pointers, I at least see what I need to be exploring now
(though I havn't sat down to unfold its meaning yet). Cetainly the
implementation given earlier needs work whether its to make it work as
advertised or in the more limited fashion suggested in other posts.
- Original Message -
From: Michael Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Paul G [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] GOTO operator
--- snip ---
presumably, you see the need in C because it's the cleanest way to
free()
all you've
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004, Paul G wrote:
actually, alloc/dealloc was just used as an example. it could be anything -
rollback, closing sockets, pretty much any sort of 'undoing' that you need
to do to make it look like nothing ever happened ;) what you are suggesting
is similar to the hack i'm using
How does the GOTO implementation handle this
script1.php
?php
do_some_stuff();
include script2.php;
label:
echo Hello
?
script2.php:
?php
declare_some_funcs();
some code ...
if (some_cond) {
goto label;
}
other code
?
Included files
i'm just piping up that i'm a strong +1 on goto, its immensely useful
for code generators, like for example a gui application that wanted to
generate some type of php code.
also, when you start quoting djikstra in a php context, you've lost.
goto is fine, fight the power!
-sterling
On Sat,
Paul G wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Michael Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Paul G [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] GOTO operator
--- snip ---
presumably, you see the need in C because it's the cleanest way to
free()
all
PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] GOTO operator
--- snip ---
presumably, you see the need in C because it's the cleanest way to
free()
all you've malloc()ed along the way, regardless of where you've errored
out.
in PHP, you've got gc, which (again presumably) makes you
:
- Original Message - From: Michael Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Paul G [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] GOTO operator
--- snip ---
presumably, you see the need in C because it's the cleanest way to
free()
all you've malloc()ed along
:
Paul G wrote:
- Original Message - From: Michael Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Paul G [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] GOTO operator
--- snip ---
presumably, you see the need in C because it's the cleanest way to
free()
all
Andrey Hristov wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
Unmaintainable because of the ability to write cryptic code. There's
nothing cryptic about:
...code
goto cleanup:
...code
cleanup:
do {
.code...
if (something) break;
...code
} while (0);
...cleanup code...
This works for
At 04:55 PM 7/29/2004 -0700, Sara Golemon wrote:
Ack! Gods no Andi is already winding up to rip me a new one for
prematurely committing the patch earlier today, don't push him over the edge
by suggesting das uberevil ini options, even in jest! ;)
-Sara
P.S. - Andi: Ya know I love ya more than
Why give our developers yet another way of shooting themselves in the foot?
Or should I say, blow off their leg? :)
Seconded.
- Sascha
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Why give our developers yet another way of shooting themselves in the
foot?
Or should I say, blow off their leg? :)
Third.
I think GoTo is a bad diretion to go in, espetially with the direction PHP
is currently taking with OOP.
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To
Andi Gutmans wrote:
[snip]
However, I think before talking about implementation, we need to decide
if goto is really good for PHP.
As I mentioned earlier, goto is one of the few features that I really
missed in the language for the past several years I've been using PHP.
We can debate until the
Edin Kadribasic wrote:
However, I think before talking about implementation, we need to
decide if goto is really good for PHP.
As I mentioned earlier, goto is one of the few features that I really
missed in the language for the past several years I've been using PHP.
We can debate until the end
- Original Message -
From: Jevon Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Frank M. Kromann [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 6:53 AM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] GOTO operator
Why not make it hard for users to use GOTO in the first place?
how about a --with-more-rope
On July 30, 2004 02:43 am, Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 04:55 PM 7/29/2004 -0700, Sara Golemon wrote:
I think there are only two cases where goto is really interesting:
a) Error handling.
b) Auto-generating code or compiler compilers (Sterling mentioned these
two).
c) Anywhere recursive functions
The main argument against providing the 'goto' statement seems to be to
protect users from themselves.
So, let's analyze the situation. In the languages which provide the
'goto' statement, is this functionality widely abused?
I have used a number of Open Source projects in several different
Develop some wacky construct that you have to use instead... that way, it
will scare off novice users, and expert programmers will HAVE to know what
they're doing and know that they really need it before they have to
implement it. It's along the lines of make the most dangerous stuff the
Lester Caine wrote:
Personally I see NO advantage to GOTO in a structured language, and even
if it is added I've learnt enough in 30 years to avoid it. Surely CASE
is much safer and naturally 'contained'?
Two words: State machine
--
Hartmut Holzgraefe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PHP Internals - PHP
Robert Cummings wrote:
C has it
C++ has it
VB has it
Lisp has GO which is pretty much the same
Perl
I'm sure many other too.
Even PASCAL, the mother of structured code languages, has it!
--
Hartmut Holzgraefe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To
Paul G wrote:
function pseudocode()
{
$a=allocate_resource_z();
$b=allocate_resource_y();
$res=do_stuff();
if(!$res)
goto err_out;
$c=allocate_resource_x();
$res=do_more_stuff();
if(!$res)
goto err_out;
$d=allocate_resource_foo();
Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
C has it
C++ has it
VB has it
Lisp has GO which is pretty much the same
Perl
I'm sure many other too.
Even PASCAL, the mother of structured code languages, has it!
Python too! ;) http://www.entrian.com/goto/ ;)
--
PHP Internals -
Hi there.
I'm one of the many readers of the list but not contributing myself since
I've no knowledge of the
internals of PHP. However I'd like to make the following comments about
'goto', addressed to people opposing its introduction in PHP:
- If you consider the 'good way of writing code',
Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote:
Personally I see NO advantage to GOTO in a structured language, and
even if it is added I've learnt enough in 30 years to avoid it. Surely
CASE is much safer and naturally 'contained'?
Two words: State machine
So what - the database tells me what to run next for each
On Fri, 2004-07-30 at 06:05, Lester Caine wrote:
Edin Kadribasic wrote:
However, I think before talking about implementation, we need to
decide if goto is really good for PHP.
As I mentioned earlier, goto is one of the few features that I really
missed in the language for the past
Rob,
First of all I don't know where you are getting O(n) from because the
operation is O(1).
Secondly, I just don't understand what the sudden necessity for the goto
construct is when over the years we have barely ever had a PHP developer
asking for it.
And please guys, don't use C
But reading the various posts here, I changed a little my opinion. I'm in
favor of a goto operator if the scope of its labels is limited to, say,
a
function/method only.
And that's precisely how this implementation of GOTO behaves. You can only
jump to a label within the same op array. That
On July 30, 2004 01:11 pm, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Secondly, I just don't understand what the sudden necessity for the goto
construct is when over the years we have barely ever had a PHP developer
asking for it.
That can be said for virtually any new functionality that was added to PHP.
Looking
Richard Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think GoTo is a bad diretion to go in, espetially with the direction PHP
is currently taking with OOP.
Let me respond by telling you what I hear:
I have no use for goto therefore noone else should be able to use it.
Secondly, I just don't understand what the sudden necessity for the goto
construct is when over the years we have barely ever had a PHP developer
asking for it.
We clearly travel in different circles. I've heard GOTO requested at least
monthly from a different person each time and have never
At 01:29 PM 7/30/2004 -0400, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On July 30, 2004 01:11 pm, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Secondly, I just don't understand what the sudden necessity for the goto
construct is when over the years we have barely ever had a PHP developer
asking for it.
That can be said for virtually any
At 10:32 AM 7/30/2004 -0700, Sara Golemon wrote:
Secondly, I just don't understand what the sudden necessity for the goto
construct is when over the years we have barely ever had a PHP developer
asking for it.
We clearly travel in different circles. I've heard GOTO requested at least
monthly
On Friday, Jul 30, 2004, at 19:38 Europe/Copenhagen, Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 01:29 PM 7/30/2004 -0400, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On July 30, 2004 01:11 pm, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Secondly, I just don't understand what the sudden necessity for the
goto
construct is when over the years we have barely
At 07:48 PM 7/30/2004 +0200, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
a) Most of the OOP functionality was requested by a huge amount of PHP
developers I've talked to.
b) I don't think internals@ is a reflection of the PHP community. Most
people here fall into the category of very advanced developers. Doesn't
On July 30, 2004 01:38 pm, Andi Gutmans wrote:
a) Most of the OOP functionality was requested by a huge amount of PHP
developers I've talked to.
I cannot comment on that as I can't hardly comment on the people you spoke
with. What I personally heard about OO primary request from developers
On Friday, Jul 30, 2004, at 19:52 Europe/Copenhagen, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Come on. I can't even believe we are arguing about this.
I really can't believe this PHP is only for morons attitude that
comes from time to time here on internals.
It's not only for morons but the PHP spirit has always been
On 30 July 2004 18:45, Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 10:32 AM 7/30/2004 -0700, Sara Golemon wrote:
Secondly, I just don't understand what the sudden necessity for
the goto construct is when over the years we have barely ever had
a PHP developer asking for it.
We clearly travel in
At 01:53 PM 7/30/2004 -0400, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
b) I don't think internals@ is a reflection of the PHP community.
If this is the case, why are we even bothering to discuss relevant to PHP
issues on this list? If people who read/write to this list do not reflect the
community perhaps we
Since a few of you have poked me about this thread now...
First, internals@ is the place where we make decisions like this. We
don't poll the community or any such sillyness. We use our collective
experience to make a decision.
I personally can easily live without GOTO, but I really don't see
- Original Message -
From: Andi Gutmans [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] GOTO operator
--- snip ---
I'm sorry but I just don't understand the great need for goto in PHP and
that is coming from
On July 30, 2004 02:08 pm, Andi Gutmans wrote:
I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that you should not only think of
yourself as a user but of everyone (i.e. make sure you put yourself in the
shoes of others and try and base your position on that). If you think the
majority of PHP users
FWIW, I also think that introducing goto into the language is not a good idea.
Yes, I agree with Wez and Ilia who said that it can be excellent if people
are taught when and how to use it well. Which is exactly why I think it's
a bad idea to put it into a language like PHP - where the barrier
Hi,
actually so far my only comment on this thing was my ironical mail about
removing try and catch because it is more or less the same as goto.
I think goto is quite similar. There have been no very compelling
arguments in favor. Some of them don't hold because of break n and the
few that are
At 21:19 30/07/2004, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
It seemed to me like people have raised numerous valid argument and have even
gone as far as to back them up with examples. If you need more of those, then
surely the supporters of goto can provide them. But let's make the decision
based on technical
At 20:48 30/07/2004, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
On Friday, Jul 30, 2004, at 19:38 Europe/Copenhagen, Andi Gutmans wrote:
At 01:29 PM 7/30/2004 -0400, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
On July 30, 2004 01:11 pm, Andi Gutmans wrote:
Secondly, I just don't understand what the sudden necessity for the goto
Something doesn't quite seem right to me about a position
that has both of the following assertions:
1) goto should not be available
2) there's already an equivalent of goto available, so
goto is not needed (and it's just fine that people
use the equivalent)
If you really believe 1,
1 - 100 of 185 matches
Mail list logo
