[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: continuing continue - was Re: [patch] continue statement
- From: David Given <dg@...>
- Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:59:52 +0100
On Saturday 24 September 2005 07:31, Glenn Maynard wrote:
[...]
> In some old OpenAL code, I found constructs like this nested fifteen (15)
> levels deep--apparently whoever wrote that code had never heard of break,
> continue or return.
I know someone who writes code like that. The reason, however, is to make it
easy to do cleanup:
a = create()
if a then
b = create(a)
if b then
c = create(b)
if c then
d = create(c)
if d then
d:dosomething()
d:destroy()
end
c:destroy()
end
b:destroy()
end
a:destroy()
end
I hate this, and tend to rewrite using gotos, but that's equally messy --- it
just avoids silly indentation levels. The only 'right' way I know of of doing
the above is to use exceptions --- which is very wordy, no matter what
language --- or to leverage the garbage collector, which we can't do in our
language.
These days when writing C++ I use smart pointer abuse to hide the
check-and-destroy statements. The resulting code isn't great for efficiency,
however.
I would *love* a continue statement in Lua --- I find myself wanting it
frequently. For that matter, I'd rather like goto, as well, but I probably
shouldn't admit that in public.
--
+- David Given --McQ-+ "...thus there might be a great reduction in
| dg@cowlark.com | useless expenditure on Nuclear rockets, reducing
| (dg@tao-group.com) | inflation and stabilising the price of cat foods."
+- www.cowlark.com --+ --- UK pat. GB1426698
Attachment:
pgpVmug_hJK57.pgp
Description: PGP signature