break seen as a C archaism
forax at univ-mlv.fr
Thu Mar 15 22:37:10 UTC 2018
> De: "John Rose" <john.r.rose at oracle.com>
> À: "Guy Steele" <guy.steele at oracle.com>
> Cc: "amber-spec-experts" <amber-spec-experts at openjdk.java.net>
> Envoyé: Jeudi 15 Mars 2018 23:06:51
> Objet: Re: break seen as a C archaism
> On Mar 15, 2018, at 2:44 PM, Guy Steele < [ mailto:guy.steele at oracle.com |
> guy.steele at oracle.com ] > wrote:
>> break return x;
>> Then everybody is happy:
>> (1) Cannot be confused with the old `break` syntax.
>> (2) Clearly exits a `switch` like `break` does.
>> (3) Clearly returns a value like `return` does.
>> (4) Better encourages exclusive use of `->` (because using `->` rather than `:
>> break return` saves even more characters than using `->` rather than `:
>> (5) In the year 2364, this can be further generalized to allow `continue return
>> (6) Those who want new language features to really jump out will surely be
> Not bad. It also doesn't weaken "plain return" in the
> way I was worried about.
> I would have numbered that last point (-1), though.
> — John
i think, we're missing a 'do' just to be sure,
do break return x;
More information about the amber-spec-observers