Re: A Macro for Steppers

[Michael McClary <xanadu!michael>]

> From xanadu!tribble Mon Dec 11 13:48:55 1989
> 
>       A problem arises when the action in the Stepper loop involves a return
>       from the embodying function.  The execution scopes of X++ and Smalltalk
>       differ somewhat here:  A return in the X++ macro will return from the
>       function that uses the macro, whereas a return in the block in Smalltalk
>       would just return from the block, but not the calling method.  ...
> 
>    I believe that a return from the block in Smalltalk also returns from
>    the invoking method, so the two languages agree here.  I'm also not
>    sure, Dean??
> 
> Yes.  It's quite annoying that there is no convenient way to
> explicitly return out of a block except by falling off the end.
> Smalltalk has the same return semantics as a return expression in X++.

How hard would it be to ADD analogs of break; and/or continue; to the
smalltalk we're using?  Is this an hour's's hack, or a major project?

(If it's being a prototyping tool for C++, it really ought to be able to
 generate the same flow constructs.)

	michael