Oh I like it. Indexing the loop number from innermost to outermost makes more
sense. The starting implicit index in case of alone continue/break will always
be known (either 1 or zero). Of course it doesn’t make sense to use negative
index for the loop because breaking from the parent loop will
I think this is the kind of feature that can very easily be abused. Whenever I
want to break out of a nested loop I take this as an opportunity to extract the
loop into its own function and use the return statement to break out of the
loop. IMO this is a lot better than having named or indexed l
I think this is the kind of feature that can very easily be abused.
Whenever I want to break out of a nested loop I take this as an
opportunity to extract the loop into its own function and use the
return statement to break out of the loop. IMO this is a lot better
than having named or indexe
I like the idea of named breaks, but I *hate* the idea of numerically
labeled breaks, whether numbered from the inside or from the outside.
On the occasions—which are actually relatively frequent—that I want to
break all the way out of an inner loop, I wind up using a sentinel STOP
variable. I kn
On 04/12/2020 20:18, David Mertz wrote:
I like the idea of named breaks, but I *hate* the idea of numerically
labeled breaks, whether numbered from the inside or from the outside.
[snip]
The problem with numbers, beyond just being harder to count out, is
that they are fragile under refactorin
