| 1 |
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 09:31:29 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:27:55 +0200 |
| 5 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > But what I was saying is that I dislike the implicit 'no label == |
| 7 |
> > build+run'. It's unclear, very unclear. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Why the heck: |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > ( foo/bar ) |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > introduces another label than: |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > use? ( foo/bar ) |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > ? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Labels are propagated into child blocks, so it doesn't introduce a new |
| 20 |
> label. I think you've misunderstood something here... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Right, too many ()s for me. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Then my argument that I want us to require explicit label at start of |
| 25 |
global () still holds. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Best regards, |
| 29 |
Michał Górny |
Archives