in reply to Re^3: "goto" memory leak
in thread "goto" memory leak
Ok, but again we could argue over the definition of the word "needed". "Needed" by the program writer or "needed" by an implementation that keeps scopes around that are not accessible to the program writer anymore? EDIT: Ok, POST is a way to actually access such scopes, maybe even other introspection code, but the question is whether there is a need to create and keep these scopes at all when the writer does not indicate he wants them around?
I'm more than happy with renaming the problem to "goto creates spurious scopes". The question that I can't answer is whether "goto" does that for a good reason, like "goto is harmful, and has to do this to jump in and out of nearly arbitrary scopes", or that it really is a bug.
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re^5: "goto" memory leak
by dave_the_m (Monsignor) on Mar 30, 2016 at 18:27 UTC | |
by jethro (Monsignor) on Mar 31, 2016 at 13:03 UTC | |
by Anonymous Monk on Mar 31, 2016 at 14:36 UTC | |
Re^5: "goto" memory leak
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Mar 31, 2016 at 02:40 UTC | |
by jethro (Monsignor) on Mar 31, 2016 at 13:15 UTC | |
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Apr 01, 2016 at 15:44 UTC |