"Stephen Hansen" <news at myNOSPAM.org> wrote in message
news:RN7F6.195252$LO3.31366224 at typhoon.we.rr.com...
[snip]
> My point was that it seems to me you can get a 'named code block' just
> fine, or at least, you can do just what the James wanted to with a named
> code block, without adding any more complexity to the language.
I agree with this point 100%, and indeed it's exactly the same
point I was also trying to make in response to James:-). It
seems to me that naming the "codeblock" rather than leaving it
unnamed is a rather minor issue in this context.
The original request on this thread was for being able to
*NAME* _other_ code-blocks -- specifically loop statements,
so that a break or continue could mention WHAT loop it was
breaking or continuing. Just so we don't forget...:-). (THAT
request can also be handled in the current language, by using
exceptions or moving code to a function and using return in
lieu of break, but I do agree with the original poster that
there _are_ some clarity/simplicity costs in doing that).
Alex
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4