There's a gotch with "blocks" exposed when I found this failed:
for var i in 0 to 10 do .. return 10l; .. done return 9;
because to protect the "i" variable I put the whole thing in a
{ .. block .. }
The problem is a block is a just a procedure, which returns void, not int.
To fix this for for loops I just dropped the block, and of course protection of
the
control variable (since I just edited so much to use this syntax I can't easily
dump it now).
The above cases causes a type error but this one doesn't:
proc F() { .... { ... if blah do return done ... }; ... }
it just returns from the block .. NOT from "F".
What Felix does is CORRECT, what C does is rubbish .. but it's still a gotcha
if you're used to C like code (which is who Felix was really designed for .. :)
Take note. Blocks are procedures not which scope variables AND control (i.e.
returns).
--
john skaller
skal...@users.sourceforge.net
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
_______________________________________________
Felix-language mailing list
Felix-language@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/felix-language
