From: "Mauricio Fernández" <batsman.geo@...>
Date: 2003-12-06T05:27:38+09:00
Subject: Re: Generalized break?

On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 12:05:20PM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> |I've sometimes wished for a "break" that would work in (almost) any
> |context -- one that would do "the sensible thing" instead of just
> |giving an error saying you can't do a break here.
> 
> "break" or jump in general requires destination.  If you want
> something like "generalized break", you have to define the destination
> for each context.  Basically, catch/throw is prepared for that
> purpose.
 
However sometimes having to define the destination is very inconvenient,
as in

> |2. I have a mild dislike for the idiom if $0 == __FILE__ (lines) end
> |-- because I always indent inside an if, and I don't want to indent,
> |and I really just want to say:  break if $0 != __FILE__
> 
> I think it's not a good idea that preparing single syntax construct to
> serve too many purpose.  I admit "$0 != __FILE__" hack is ugly, but it
> should be solved by some other way than "generalized break.

Would it be possible to wrap each file/evaluated string in an implicit

catch(:__END_INTERPRETATION__) do  # a better name is 90% of the thing :)

....

end

?

-- 
 _           _                             
| |__   __ _| |_ ___ _ __ ___   __ _ _ __  
| '_ \ / _` | __/ __| '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ 
| |_) | (_| | |_\__ \ | | | | | (_| | | | |
|_.__/ \__,_|\__|___/_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|
	Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com

"You, sir, are nothing but a pathetically lame salesdroid!
I fart in your general direction!"
	-- Randseed on #Linux