[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Break statement, again.
- From: Fred Bertsch <fb@...>
- Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 11:11:04 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo wrote:
> It might work for you, but this solution requires 2 variables external to
> the loop (endvalue and increment) -- but you say that this is A Good Thing.
That's not such a problem. Most loops, I suspect, know when to end
and how to change the loop variable without variables from outside the
loop. In any case, it would be similar with a while loop. (Without the
> More seriously, you cannot assign to local variables inside the loop,
> only to global variables. This would be an ungly restriction for loops.
> Of course, you can always use a table as an upvalue and then assign fields
> of it inside the loop. That would work.
True. That wouldn't be particularly elegant. However, you can also
return a value with the return statement. So you could have the initial
Loop() call set some local variables with the return values from the loop.
> About tail-recursion optimization, we already have an opcode for this.
> We just don't check whether we can re-use the stack.
> We'll be discussing this for the next version.
Tail recursion clearly isn't going to work everywhere. However, I would
guess that it'll work in a lot more places than the current while loop.