Re: return

[Helmut Eller]

* 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