Just another idea: if locals are
pushed on the stack the moment they are declared, then skipping the
declaration of x and the rest of the code until the end of the loop
body will cause something-with-x to access the stack with a wrong
index. Would that raise an error at runtime?
HE
Alex Davies escribió:
I believe an error would be possible, and I believe would
be easier to debug then an occasional attempt to "x" on a nil value.
Changing where the locals are effectively declared would result in
loadnils (in the output code) where they really aren't necessary.
I believe Roberto/the authors worry that adding a continue now may well
make future modifications to the language that much harder. Still, I'd
go for one.
- Alex
----- Original Message ----- From: Hugo Etchegoyen
To: Lua list
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 1:11 AM
Subject: Re: upcoming changes in Lua 5.2 [was Re: Location of a
package]
I don't know the compiler details. Would it be too difficult to
consider local declarations after a conditional or unconditional
'continue' an error? Or collect all local declarations (not
initializations) at the beginning of a block? For example, treat the
given example code as if it was:
--
Ing.
Hugo Eduardo Etchegoyen
Gerente Dto. Software de Base
Compañía
Hasar | Grupo
Hasar
Marcos Sastre y José Ingenieros
El Talar. Pacheco
[B1618CSD] Buenos Aires. Argentina
Tel [54 11] 4117 8900 | Fax [54 11] 4117 8998
E-mail: hetchegoyen@hasar.com
Visítenos en: www.hasar.com
Información legal y política de
confidencialidad: www.grupohasar.com/disclaimer
|
