From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-32750-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 22211 invoked by alias); 8 Jun 2014 20:30:07 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
List-Post: <mailto:zsh-workers@zsh.org>
List-Help: <mailto:zsh-workers-help@zsh.org>
X-Seq: 32750
Received: (qmail 20689 invoked from network); 8 Jun 2014 20:29:55 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-Originating-IP: [86.6.157.246]
X-Spam: 0
X-Authority: v=2.1 cv=f8XGBYCM c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=BvYiZ/UW0Fmn8Wufq9dPrg==:117
 a=BvYiZ/UW0Fmn8Wufq9dPrg==:17 a=NLZqzBF-AAAA:8 a=LGXc4NIGxrIA:10
 a=uObrxnre4hsA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=qc4BS4RhzQJ13fb7R4YA:9
 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=_dQi-Dcv4p4A:10
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2014 21:29:50 +0100
From: Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@ntlworld.com>
To: zsh-workers@zsh.org
Subject: Re: break/continue vs. try-always
Message-ID: <20140608212950.7384ba2b@pws-pc.ntlworld.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140608204358.4ec607b8@pws-pc.ntlworld.com>
References: <140603191227.ZM28198@torch.brasslantern.com>
	<140604223723.ZM22960@torch.brasslantern.com>
	<140605085319.ZM4272@torch.brasslantern.com>
	<20140606215853.0c6ecae9@pws-pc.ntlworld.com>
	<CAH+w=7a-JygJXDEiNjD0_4ggU-bBwNU_Q1-rOFm-DJMJMS7cGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140606224523.09d5f22c@pws-pc.ntlworld.com>
	<140606232250.ZM23057@torch.brasslantern.com>
	<20140608185401.35bed78f@pws-pc.ntlworld.com>
	<140608114123.ZM20229@torch.brasslantern.com>
	<20140608204358.4ec607b8@pws-pc.ntlworld.com>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.7; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Sun, 8 Jun 2014 20:43:58 +0100
Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> If you like the idea of function scope as a sandbox, it seems me that a
> neater way to handle this would be to add an option to force break and
> continue to respect function scope.  Then no new syntax is required.
> Provide you define that the new option (call it localloops for now) is
> applied in the outer function on return from the inner, you can do
> everything with
> 
> 
> setopt localoptions localloops
> () {
>    # call user code
> }
> # localloops is restored on return here and used to cancel breaks /
> # contflag before resuming user code at this point.

A further thought is we could even flag an error if there was a break or
continue pending at this point, since evidently the user tried to do
something they shouldn't.  Then we could get the continue-outside-a-loop
test to work, thought it wouldn't quite be testing the code it was meant
to test.

pws