> On Mar 15, 2018, at 3:40 PM, Remi Forax <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "Guy Steele" <[email protected]>
>> À: "mark" <[email protected]>
>> Cc: "amber-spec-experts" <[email protected]>
>> Envoyé: Jeudi 15 Mars 2018 20:18:34
>> Objet: Re: break seen as a C archaism
>
>>> On Mar 15, 2018, at 3:06 PM, Mark Raynsford <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2018-03-15T14:50:45 -0400
>>> Brian Goetz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If you are reconsidering options, reconsider "yield", meaning
>>>>> "break current context with this value".
>>>>
>>>> Still feeling a little burned by first time we floated this, but willing
>>>> to try another run up the flagpole....
>>>
>>> Silly idea, but... *puts on fireproof suit*:
>>>
>>> "finally x;"
>>
>> Interestingly, the keywords `try` and `catch` and `finally` currently must
>> each
>> be followed by a block, so there is indeed syntactic space to use each one
>> with
>> a following expression instead.
>>
>> Which only suggests that . . . *puts on fireproof suit and then climbs into a
>> concrete bunker and slams the door*:
>>
>> “try x;”
>>
>> would be shorter and no sillier.
>>
>> —Guy
>
> It seams too close to the try-with-resources.
>
> compare
> try (resource) -> { }; // a try that break/return a lambda
> with
> try (resource) { } // a try-with-resources
>
> Rémi
Indeed. Mine was not a serious suggestion. I agree with John Rose’s analysis:
“break x;” really does seem to be the best point in the design space,
especially since you can use “->” to hide it 98% of the time.
"But I was thinking of a plan
To dye one's whiskers green,
And always use so large a fan
That they could not be seen.”
—Lewis Carroll
