🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <42f8n4$eq1@caip.rutgers.edu>, halasz@caip.rutgers.edu writes:
In article <42bjpc$lum@yage.tembel.org>, shields@tembel.org (Michael Shields) writes:
> But that would be the same as goto, plus a suffix.
"suffix"?
> The potential for abuse is obvious; can you give an example
> where it would make code much clearer?

(the strange new token is onlie for distinction from "goto"-label):
	search:: while (1) {
		...
		while (1) {
			...
			break search;
		}
	}
The syntactic distinction makes "goto" not work for this label.  Furthermore,
this label is known onlie within the loop, and use of it on another loop is
valid.  Therefore, one knows where "break"s and "continue"s that refer to
this label can be.

Another form was suggested:
	while search: (1) { ... }
.  This is good, except for "do ... while (...);".

A third scheme occurs to me:
    1: So leav all labels as thei are, and let "break"/"continue" uze them,
    2: but forbid sharing of labels between "goto" and the rest.
    3: Allou a new construct for labels onlie for "goto",
       	label <label>;
       with a view to changing the meaning of label with colon, for use
       onlie by "break"/"continue".