break seen as a C archaism

[Guy Steele]

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 <brian.goetz at oracle.com> 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" <john.r.rose at oracle.com> <mailto:john.r.rose at oracle.com>
>> À: "Guy Steele" <guy.steele at oracle.com> <mailto:guy.steele at oracle.com>
>> Cc: "amber-spec-experts" <amber-spec-experts at openjdk.java.net> <mailto: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/c57d0900/attachment.html>