> My question was whether the semantics of break and continue would
> support the following:
Yes, this is another good case to consider. Thanks for pointing it out; I'll
add this to the strawman:lambdas proposal. Essentially this is another aspect
of the semantics of 'function' that is implicit -- that it cancels out the
scope of break/continue labels -- and it's precisely these implicit elements of
a language feature that break expected equivalences. (They are essentially
"unhygienic" -- if you push me, I can explain the connection to macros.)
> while(true) {
> (function() {
> if (--x == 0) break;
> })();
> }
Note that the 'lambda' proposal is intended to be separate from 'function',
whose semantics would be left unchanged. So your example would still be
disallowed, but this:
while(true) {
(lambda() {
if (--x == 0) break;
})();
}
would be allowed.
> I honestly don't know, but it shouldn't cause any real trouble to
> allow it. The implementation would be analogous to that for labeled
> return. For example, if the appropriate while loop is no longer on the
> stack, the "break" would turn into an exception.
That's correct.
Dave
_______________________________________________
Es-discuss mailing list
Es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
