Well, actually, Brian, I now realize that I had my tongue in only _one_ of my cheeks. Sleep on it and then see what you think.
> On Mar 15, 2018, at 6:38 PM, Brian Goetz <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]> <mailto:[email protected]> >> À: "Guy Steele" <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> >> Cc: "amber-spec-experts" <[email protected]> >> <mailto:[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 >> >
