Re[3]: upcoming changes in Lua 5.2 [was Re: Location of a package]

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

Whops, wrong button. Send instead of save. :)

Just to finish the sentence: I'm not trying to force any opinion, just
pointing out a possible pitfall of choosing innocence over value,
where perhaps you would have lived without the innocent one happily,
while the missed value hurts more. But in the end, your idea about a
more general forward goto seems even better, so perhaps I better shut
up to allow you to think about how best to implement that. :p

Cheers,
Alen

Wednesday, February 27, 2008, 10:03:05 PM, you wrote:

> 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).


> 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,



-- 
Best regards,
 Alen                            mailto:alenl-ml@croteam.com