[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: RE: Re: why no "continue" statement for loops?
- From: "Martin Slater" <mslater@...>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:42:41 +1000
Seems ideal for a bit preprocessor gubbins to hide the slighty odd
#define CHANGE_STATE(_x) return _x()
couldn't really be simpler for non coder types.
[mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Dylan Cuthbert
Sent: Wednesday, 25 June 2003 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: Re: why no "continue" statement for loops?
That's alright, I'll let you off :-)
That recursive tail function call freebie is interesting. Although
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
Q-Games, Dylan Cuthbert.
"Nick Trout" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
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.