🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <485hl3$6e7@news0.rain.rg.net> plong@perf.com "Paul Long" writes:

>Lawrence Kirby <fred@genesis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>[snip]
>>It would be quite reasonable to specify the grammar to limit this type
>>of label only to compound statements.
>
>Ugh. Special cases are the bane of useability.

I don't believe so in this case. It is very unlikely that they would be
used in situations where the statement being jumped out of is not a
compound statement. Where you have nested loops you're not really losing
anything by forcing the outer loop to use { and } instead of ;

>>In fact one of the possibilities
>>is simply to define a compound statement label which has scope limited
>>to within the compound statement labelled.
>
>You're getting close to situation indicators, which I would prefer if
>I were defining a new language. I think labeled loops are a hack--I
>would want something both more general and unified, not optional
>clauses to sundry existing constructs.

This imposes the same limitation of having to use compound statements as
the first suggestion.

-- 
-----------------------------------------
Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk
Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------