flow-control

Suppose I have a piece of Perl code like: foreach my $x (@x) { foreach my $y (@z) { foreach my $z (@z) { if (something()) { # I want to break free! } # do stuff } # do stuff } # do stuff } If something() is true, I would like to break ('last') all the loops. how can I do that? I thought of two options, both of which I don't like: Using something GOTO Adding a boolean variable which will mark something() is true, check this var in each of the loops before they resume and last() if it's true. Any suggestions or thoughts? Thanks. Use a label: OUTER: foreach my $x (@x) { foreach my $y (@z) {

I would like to breakup certain phases in the maven life cycle into sub phases. I would like to control the execution flow from one sub-phase to another, sort of like with ant dependencies. For example, I would like to use the NSIS plugin in order to package up my project into an installer at the package stage, AFTER my project had been packaged into a war file. I would like to do all that at the package phase. Is that possible? Thanks Plugins bound to the same phase should be executed in the same order as they are listed in the POM. Under certain circumstances (e.g. if you bind the same

This one just came up: How do I break out of an if statement? I have a long if statement, but there is one situation where I can break out of it early on. In a loop I can do this: while (something ) { last if $some_condition; blah, blah, blah ... } However, can I do the same with an if statement? if ( some_condition ) { blah, blah, blah last if $some_other_condition; # No need to continue... blah, blah, blah ... } I know I could put the if statement inside a block, and then I can break out of the block: { if ( some_condition ) { ... last if $some_other_condition; # No need to continue... blah,

In C, it's common to assign and compare in a single expression: n = n_init; do { func(n); } while ((n = n.next) != n_init); As I understand it this can be expressed in Rust as: n = n_init; loop { func(n); n = n.next; if n == n_init { break; } } Which works the same as the C version (assuming the body of the loop doesn't use continue ). Is there a more terse way to express this in Rust, or is the example above ideal? For the purposes of this question, assume ownership or satisfying the borrow checker isn't an issue. It's up to developer to satisfy these requirements. For example, as an integer:

I find myself very commonly using a pattern like this: if (a > b) { foo(); } elseif (c > d) { bar(); } else { baz(); } The point here being that the second condition is not obviously connected to the first, unless you're carefully following the program logic. Is this a very bad thing? Would it be preferable to phrase the above as if (a > b) { foo(); } else { if (c > d) { bar(); } else { baz(); } } for maintainability reasons? Is there a better pattern that I'm missing entirely? The "not obviously connected" bit seems to be one of the more common sources of bugs in my code. It doesn't really

The only use case I can think of for redo would be for operations like writing to a socket or reading from a database, but if these fail once, subsequent attempts will most likely also fail so it still seems a bit pointless to me and as for retry I can't really think of any case where it would be useful. This might only seem meaningless to me since I don't know or use Ruby, but I aspire to create an awesome language one day so I would like to at least know reasoning behind design of some of the most popular languages out there. The idea is that you change something before calling redo or retry

Is it possible to tell if there was an exception once you're in the finally clause? Something like: try: funky code finally: if ???: print('the funky code raised') I'm looking to make something like this more DRY: try: funky code except HandleThis: # handle it raised = True except DontHandleThis: raised = True raise else: raised = False finally: logger.info('funky code raised %s', raised) I don't like that it requires to catch an exception, which you don't intend to handle, just to set a flag. Since some comments are asking for less "M" in the MCVE, here is some more background on the use-case

In my test I am calling and outside library to seed data into our backend before running some ui tests using protractor. 'use strict' var dataBuilder = require('data_builder.js'); describe('test', function () { var testData = { name: 'foo', title: 'bar', ... }; beforeEach(function () { //create test data on the backend dataBuilder.create(testData).then(function (id) { testData.id = id.id; }); }); it('test something', function () { ... }); As such the promise returned by the dataBuilder isn't resolved before the it() actually finishes. How can I add the promise returned by the dataBuilder into