Hi! On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 05:15:09PM +0200, Andre Fachat wrote: > while investigating unnamed labels, I found that they are not bound by scope blocks. Yes, that is correct. > Is this intentional, or a bug? It is intentional. Scopes organizes symbols, but unnamed labels are by definition not symbols. And, unnamed labels are a mess when used with larger pieces of code, but scopes are used mostly with larger sections of code. And last, unnamed labels don't play very well with scopes. You can say foo::bar to access a symbol bar in the scope foo, but how would you do that with scopes? If you can come up with a good reason, why unnamed labels should adhere scoping rules, then I will think about changing the semantics. I for my part cannot think of any such reason. However, it might be a good idea to mention it in the docs, just for completeness sake. Regards Uz -- Ullrich von Bassewitz uz@musoftware.de ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.Received on Mon Jul 30 12:05:03 2012
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2012-07-30 12:05:08 CEST