> If I understand your suggestion, you're proposing that non-local break and > continue should be exposed as standard exceptions, and then implementors of > loop-like abstractions could choose to catch them. > ... > Did I understand your suggestion correctly?
Yes. I was thinking about the BGGA closure proposal that Allen also linked to: http://www.javac.info/closures-v05.html > This *may* not violate TCP (I'm not quite sure), but I'm not enthusiastic > about the idea. The semantics is significantly more complicated, and it > requires you to understand whether a higher-order function like forEach is > catching these exceptions or not. So it becomes an additional part of the API > of a function. If someone doesn't document what they do with BreakException > and ContinueException, then writing callbacks you won't actually be able to > predict what `break` and `continue` will do. I don’t think it’s a must-have, but whenever you catch exceptions, you have similar issues. -- Dr. Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de home: rauschma.de twitter: twitter.com/rauschma blog: 2ality.com
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
