Treatment of nested 'break'

[Brian Goetz]

This might not help, but perhaps think of it as a compound keyword; 
"break switch" is not "break with an argument of switch", but a 
multi-word keyword itself.

(Back in lambda, when we explored the consequence of using "return" in 
lambda, and observed it foreclosed on nonlocal return should we ever 
want to get there, we briefly discussed "long return" as a compound 
keyword for that case.  Same game.)

Personally if I saw "break while", I think I'd immediately know what 
that means, and might even thank the author for being clear.

On 5/10/2018 3:57 PM, Kevin Bourrillion wrote:
> I'm just going to say that naming a keyword as the argument of another 
> keyword seems novel and unprecedented for Java, and as such I think 
> should require pretty strong justification.
>
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Guy Steele <guy.steele at oracle.com 
> <mailto:guy.steele at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     > On May 10, 2018, at 3:06 PM, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com
>     <mailto:brian.goetz at oracle.com>> wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     >> 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.
>
>     If we are willing to pile up keywords in that manner, an alternate
>     possibility is to spell a value-returning break in a different way:
>
>             return switch <expression>;
>
>     Then your example can become (I have added the implicit context):
>
>             switch (…) { case 17 -> {
>                     …
>                     for (…) {
>                        ...
>                        if (foo)
>                            break;
>                        else
>                            return switch 3;
>                     … }
>                 … }
>             … }
>
>     The additional advantage of this approach is that it completely
>     eliminates the syntactic ambiguity between
>
>             break variableName;
>
>     and
>
>             break labelName;
>
>     Given that we think most occurrences of “return switch” (or
>     “switch return”, take your pick) will be abbreviated by -> anyway,
>     this might be an acceptable approach.
>
>     You can then still choose to go ahead and also allow things like
>
>             break for;
>             break switch;
>             break while;
>             continue for;
>             continue switch;
>
>     but that can be a separate decision; these become simply a way to
>     avoid using statement labels.
>
>     —Guy
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Kevin Bourrillion | Java Librarian | Google, Inc. |kevinb at google.com 
> <mailto:kevinb at google.com>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/amber-spec-experts/attachments/20180510/2c353a25/attachment-0001.html>