[daneelsan]

Some say they don't like it because it it's implicit control flow, i.e. I don't like that my code is being put into the end of the function without it being in the end of the function. I mean OK, but that's what for loops so right? The i++ is put at the end of the "while" loop, together with the exit condition. I think the more important problems are: 1) why be function scoped and not block scoped? 2)why should it be so tied up with lambdas?

1) I don't se why they chose function over scoped so please enlighten me 2) the proposal said there were debates whether defer free(ptr) refers to the ptr where the defer first appears, or to the current ptr that appears when the defer block is being executed. As someone mentioned, gotos already work in the latter way. Same goes with i++ in a for loop, I could do whatever I wanted with the i inside the for, and the i++ or the exit condition would use the latest value of i, not the value at the start of the block.

[laserbeam]

> Some say they don't like it because it it's implicit control flow, i.e. I don't like that my code is being put into the end of the function without it being in the end of the function.

Wait, what? The whole point of defer is to let you do that. People like defer because it's different control flow. If that's why X doesn't like defer, X shouldn't use it. No big deal.

[daneelsan]

Yeah, I do want some kind of defer.

[camel-cdr]

> I don't se why they chose function over scoped so please enlighten me

I don't like it either, but it allows for a simpler syntax, consider e.g. "f = fopen(...); if (f) { defer fclose(); }". You'd need special syntax for the defer to escape the block. Although this example is a bit forced, because usually you'd return from the function on error anyways.