Re: question on <close>

[pocomane <pocomane_7a@...>]

Yes, you can write all what you want with label and goto, you neither
need 'for' and 'while' loops. The hypothesis is that all these
constructs make it simple to read/write/maintain the code.

For the specific case of <close>, the first advantages I can think of are:

1) You put the finalization code near the initialization one
2) Library can return structured objects that know how to be closed
(i.e. a library have not to specify "Close the object with the X
method")
3) It play very well with other constructs, like the new 'for' semantic [1]

[1] https://marc.info/?l=lua-l&m=158760544231443&w=2

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 4:54 PM Andrea <andrea.l.vitali@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I now understand the rationale for <close> but I would like to ask a hypothetical question.
>
> <close> causes something to happen when a variable goes out of scope, which happens when a block terminates - for local variables in functions, this happens when a function return
>
> so my question is:
>
> could one get away by substituting all returns with a goto label, and after the label put the code necessary to close the variable?
>
> from my point of view this could also be done in every block: am I right?
>
> I guess this has already been discussed and there is some additional advantage in having a <close> attribute
>
> but I am curious - thank you very much for your patience
>
>     Andrea
>
>
> --
> Andrea Vitali
>
>
>
>
>
>