3 ms·
You're arguing a very patronizing point of view: you know what is better for my code. I find these things are not universal. Passing state around can be very c
by rich_sasha 4y ago
You're arguing a very patronizing point of view: you know what is better for my code.
I find these things are not universal. Passing state around can be very confusing. Not on trend with everything being "pure" and functional but true pragmatically speaking.
Certainly compared to walrus operator or f strings, labelled break/continue operations are very valid tools, which has different tradeoffs to alternative ways of emulating it, so sometimes will be better.
- joshuamorton 4y agoI am arguing the very obviously true point that some ways of writing a piece of code are easier to understand for most people. I'm not arguing anything about your code, I've only provided my own code examples. There's no reason for that to be patronizing. My point was and is that labelled break and continue are almost always a code smell, and would be banned by any good style guide, much like c++ has many misfeatures that are banned by most style guides. You may not be most people, break and continue may be clearer to you, but that's not a good reason to add a feature to a language. Not every language needs to be perfectly catered to your needs. Certainly not every language should (or needs) to cater to all of my needs, and again there's nothing patronizing about expressing that. Adding a misfeature doesn't make much sense, and you've done nothing to demonstrate that labelled break and continue are useful or make code clearer. Nor even that unlabelled break and continue are particularly valuable. Instead you've claimed I'm insulting you.