🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <DHpCK1.HyG@kroete2.freinet.de> ehcorry@inet.uni-c.dk (Erik Corry) writes:
>: Andrew Dunbar (andrewd@agnus.livewire.com.au) wrote:
>: : for outer (x = 0; x < MAXX; x++)
>: :     ...
>: :          break (outer);
>
>What I think is wrong with 'named loops':
>
>2) It's a completely new syntax for C. This makes parsing it difficult.
>   Specifically it looks like a function call inner() yet it is actually
>   a label. Major grief for the lexer/parser interface. So at a minmum
>   there should be a ':' after the label to help the lexer. If you
>   do that why not swap the order of the label and the for/while token
>   and do it like Java!

Assuming this proposal could ever actually gain momentum, I wouldn't
be for the ()'s on the break, but would never reject it for parsing 
problems.  In fact, I think the parsing would be ok  and not the problem
you mention.

The real problem I have with this proposal is that it only considers `for'
(and probably `while').  If to be stronger, it could be more general than
just those, plus consider appropriateness of special cases.
Even with that though, no doubt we still wouldn't see it fly...

- Greg
-- 
       Comeau Computing, 91-34 120th Street, Richmond Hill, NY, 11418-3214
 Here:comeau@csanta.attmail.com / BIX:comeau or comeau@bix.com / CIS:72331,3421
    Voice:718-945-0009 / Fax:718-441-2310 / Prodigy: tshp50a / WELL: comeau