At this point, the Colonel from Monty Python breaks in, and shuts us
down for being too silly....
On 3/15/2018 6:37 PM, Remi Forax wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*De: *"John Rose" <[email protected]>
*À: *"Guy Steele" <[email protected]>
*Cc: *"amber-spec-experts" <[email protected]>
*Envoyé: *Jeudi 15 Mars 2018 23:06:51
*Objet: *Re: break seen as a C archaism
On Mar 15, 2018, at 2:44 PM, Guy Steele <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
break return x;
Then everybody is happy:
(1) Cannot be confused with the old `break` syntax.
(2) Clearly exits a `switch` like `break` does.
(3) Clearly returns a value like `return` does.
(4) Better encourages exclusive use of `->` (because using
`->` rather than `: break return` saves even more characters
than using `->` rather than `: break`).
(5) In the year 2364, this can be further generalized to allow
`continue return x;`.
(6) Those who want new language features to really jump out
will surely be satisfied.
Not bad. It also doesn't weaken "plain return" in the
way I was worried about.
I would have numbered that last point (-1), though.
— John
i think, we're missing a 'do' just to be sure,
do break return x;
Rémi
