RE: Re[2]: why no "continue" statement for loops?

["Martin Slater" <mslater@...>]

Seems ideal for a bit preprocessor gubbins to hide the slighty odd
syntax. Just
#define CHANGE_STATE(_x) return _x()

couldn't really be simpler for non coder types.

My 2c

Martin


-----Original Message-----
From: lua-bounces@bazar2.conectiva.com.br
[mailto:lua-bounces@bazar2.conectiva.com.br] On Behalf Of Dylan Cuthbert
Sent: Wednesday, 25 June 2003 12:55 PM
To: lua@bazar2.conectiva.com.br
Subject: Re: Re[2]: why no "continue" statement for loops?

That's alright, I'll let you off :-)

That recursive tail function call freebie is interesting.  Although
jumping
state by returning new functions to call somehow feels *odd*.  I'll play
with it and see what kind of code I can produce with it.

I'm slowly formulating a way to mold Lua to my needs... not quite there
yet
though. ;-)

---------------------------------
Q-Games, Dylan Cuthbert.
http://www.q-games.com

"Nick Trout" <nick@rockstarvancouver.com> wrote in message
911F8C8EB7A8084AAEDD55CEDC54D8F80CB4B6@iggy.rockstarvancouver.com">news:911F8C8EB7A8084AAEDD55CEDC54D8F80CB4B6@iggy.rockstarvancouver.com..
.

I said it was seat of the pants untested ;-). I wanted to go home for me
tea. Maybe if the dispatch is in the coroutine and you remember the next
state and change on an update...? I take your point that arbitrary
control flow is more difficult functionally.

--nick