Re[2]: upcoming changes in Lua 5.2 [was Re: Location of a package]

[Alen Ladavac <alenl-ml@...>]

Wednesday, February 27, 2008, 3:32:27 PM, Roberto wrote:

> At the time we "added" the local scope for repeat it really seemed
> innocent. And it was not really an "added" "feature", we just changed a
> scope rule. Unless the fact that it is different from other languages,
> it should be neither simpler nor more complex than the old rule.

Well, replace "add" with "change" in my post, then. :) The original
point still stands: one change seems more innocent, yet doesn't add
substantial value, while the other is obviously more problematic to
get right, but should pay off in substantial added value (in terms of
what kind of flow structuring is available).

I'm not trying to

In this spirit, I wholeheartedly agree with your further:

> Our main concern with "continue" is that there are several other
> control structures that (in our view) are more or less as important
> as "continue" and may even replace it. (E.g., break with labels [as
> in Java] or even a more generic goto.)

Even better. I believe that doing a more general thing would be more
in the spirit of Lua. In the end,