Continue in switch

Brian Goetz brian.goetz at
Tue May 8 21:21:13 UTC 2018

Yes, that's what I'm aiming at.  If you have something simple where the 
switch is not enclosed in a loop, then bare "continue" does the obvious 
thing; if there is an ambiguity, you have to say "continue label" or 
"continue switch".  Hence the warning now for when that might happen later.

On 5/8/2018 4:31 PM, John Rose wrote:
> Brian, are you thinking that bare continue, inside switch, *inside loop*,
> is an *ambiguity error*?  That would be worth warning about about:
> Today's correct code would become an error tomorrow:
> for (;;) {
>    switch (x) {
>       case 0:
>         continue;  // Error/warning: ambiguous unlabeled continue
>    }
> }
> The message could say "unlabeled continue is ambiguous when
> nested in both switch and proper loop, repair by saying either
> 'continue switch' or 'continue for', or use a label."
> In that case, the warnings could be sent even after feature adoption.
> Eventually when the warnings turn to errors, no code changes
> semantics, but some code breaks.  Or make it be a warning forever.

More information about the amber-spec-experts mailing list