🚀 go-pugleaf

Andrew Dunbar (andrewd@agnus.livewire.com.au) wrote:

: Has anyone thought of the possibility of 'named' loops?

: for outer (x = 0; x < MAXX; x++)
: {
:    for inner (y = 0; y < MAXY; y++)
:    {
:       if (map[y][x] == '*')
:          break (outer);
:    }
: }

Definitely better than break(2) or continue(2), but why not do it the
same way Java does it:

outer:
for (x = 0; x < MAXX; x++)
{
   for (y = 0; y < MAXY; y++)
   {
      if (map[y][x] == '*')
         break outer;
   }
}

It would be a pity to do it differently to Java unless there's
a good reason. Of course the question is, what do we gain by this?
You could trivially do the same with goto. It makes more sense
for continue, actually, which couldn't be done as well with
goto. But it is utterly unrealistic to talk about removing
goto from C9X. Java is in a different situation because it
doesn't have goto in the first place. One of the benefits of
an almost clean slate design.

--
Erik Corry ehcorry@inet.uni-c.dk