🚀 go-pugleaf

Greg Comeau (comeau@panix.com) wrote:
: In article <DHpCK1.HyG@kroete2.freinet.de> ehcorry@inet.uni-c.dk (Erik Corry) writes:
: >: Andrew Dunbar (andrewd@agnus.livewire.com.au) wrote:
: >: : for outer (x = 0; x < MAXX; x++)
: >: :     ...
: >: :          break (outer);
: >
: 
: Assuming this proposal could ever actually gain momentum, I wouldn't
: be for the ()'s on the break, but would never reject it for parsing 
: problems.  In fact, I think the parsing would be ok  and not the problem
: you mention.

Oh the ()'s on the break were just a coding style - I should have left
them out. I sometimes put ()'s on a return statement too.
: 
: The real problem I have with this proposal is that it only considers `for'
: (and probably `while').  If to be stronger, it could be more general than
: just those, plus consider appropriateness of special cases.
: Even with that though, no doubt we still wouldn't see it fly...
: 
I intended them to be used in any construct where a break would apply:
do, for, switch, while

Somebody mentioned 'if' but I couldn't see a use for it.

Andrew Dunbar
GPSoftware