Treatment of nested 'break'

[Brian Goetz]

> I think these are both valid explanations, with different outcomes, but anyway it's fair to say that it would be confusing to have the latter perspective and then try to explain how a value break can get past a surrounding 'for' loop.

One option is: you can't.  While I agree there is code that one might 
like to write that is made cumbersome by this, it's a valid option, and 
not one that is utterly terrible.

Another option is to extend the break syntax along the lines of the 
proposed continue syntax.  Suppose for every continuable construct x 
(for, while, switch) we supported "continue x".  So for every breakable 
construct y we could support "break y".  If a for loop were enclosed in 
an expression switch, you could then say "break switch e".  Then

     if (foo)
         break;
     else
         break 3;

becomes

     if (foo)
         break for;
     else
         break switch 3;

and it is much more obvious what is going on.