break seen as a C archaism

[Brian Goetz]

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" <john.r.rose at oracle.com>
>     *À: *"Guy Steele" <guy.steele at oracle.com>
>     *Cc: *"amber-spec-experts" <amber-spec-experts at openjdk.java.net>
>     *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 <guy.steele at oracle.com
>     <mailto:guy.steele at oracle.com>> 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
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/amber-spec-experts/attachments/20180315/75b61156/attachment.html>