From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Helmut Eller Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: return Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 10:22:57 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87hbeu7l84.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87bp52ae9g.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87r5dyfxmn.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87ei9y5z0v.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87vd3a79zi.fsf@stupidchicken.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1291454626 20839 80.91.229.12 (4 Dec 2010 09:23:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 09:23:46 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 04 10:23:43 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1POoLE-0000pY-00 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 04 Dec 2010 10:23:40 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33660 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1POoLD-0007Yr-At for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 04 Dec 2010 04:23:39 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=37543 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1POoL5-0007Yi-07 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Dec 2010 04:23:31 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1POoL4-0003jF-0V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Dec 2010 04:23:30 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:50710) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1POoL3-0003io-Pf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Dec 2010 04:23:29 -0500 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1POoL1-0000fW-LN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Dec 2010 10:23:27 +0100 Original-Received: from 212.46.179.36 ([212.46.179.36]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 04 Dec 2010 10:23:27 +0100 Original-Received: from eller.helmut by 212.46.179.36 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 04 Dec 2010 10:23:27 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 14 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.46.179.36 User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:NzPwt7fzbaC7dlAdPzr+SRiWRUg= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:133397 Archived-At: * Chong Yidong [2010-12-03 22:44] writes: > Also, block tags should have lexical scope, so in order to implement > `block' properly we probably ought to wait for the lexical binding > changes. I think it is currently possible to implement `return' for > exiting unnamed blocks, and leave `block'/`return-from' for the future, > but I dunno if doing it like that is worth our while. What's an "unnamed block"? Is that the same as a block with name nil? The compiler should recognize when a block tag doesn't escape and use simple byte-goto instructions for that case. Would that be difficult? Helmut