Re: (not) handling new programming idioms with grace

[Roberto Ierusalimschy <roberto@...>]

> If Roberto wants to go with a scope-qualified local, at least it's a
> slippery slope to laying a new control structure on top of it :)
> Though it will be important that exit is called on the locals in the
> reverse order of declaration.

We are quite familiar with these "slippery slopes". It is in fact a
hard argument to not add scope-qualified local. We usually add a
feature to solve a problem, not to create new ones.

We had something (scope-qualified locals) that seemed to be enough.
Now we have this list of problems:

- It does not create a new scope by itself;
- It is not visible enough;
- It still does not solve the problem for global variables;
- It cannot supress exceptions.


-- Roberto