30 Jan
2010
30 Jan
'10
3:58 p.m.
Hi Steve,
No it was just a mistake, I meant it is as if with_actions is always given - I find the terminology very confusing! I would prefer that continue not change the normal effect of the actions and there be a without_actions (or no_carry_forward or no_propagate which would be more descriptive of what happens) command that prevented the carry forward.
But no, I am not going to change anything unless you all want the change.
Although I "invented" with_actions, I have no problem with you inverting it if you think that would be better. At the time, it seemed like a reasonable solution to the problem of actions always being executed when using continue. Cheers, Mark