On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 15:52:24 +0100, bartc <b...@freeuk.com> declaimed the > following: > >>'goto' would be one easy-to-execute byte-code; no variables, objects or >>types to worry about. If implemented properly (with the byte-code >>compiler using a dedicated name-space for labels) there would be no name >>lookups. >> > > Only if GOTO is not allowed to break out of namespaces... > > NO GOTO from inside a function to some global catch-all handler... No > GOTO from a global scope into a non-global scope. > > Once you permit uncontrolled/unlimited GOTO you have to be concerned > with stack-frames and object life-times.
Even within a function you would still have to be concerned about a goto from inside a try or with block to outside of that block, as the finally block or the context manager's __exit__ still need to be executed on the way out. Not to mention the time-honored tradition of using goto to jump INTO a block, such as Duff's Device. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
