On 3/14/2018 2:04 PM, Kevin Bourrillion wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 8:14 AM, Brian Goetz <brian.go...@oracle.com
<mailto:brian.go...@oracle.com>> wrote:
In the meantime, let me probe for what's really uncomfortable
about the current design point. Is it:
- That we are overloading an existing control construct, "break",
to mean something just different enough to be uncomfortable;
To some degree yes, since `break <identifier>` already means something.
We had rejected this earlier for fairly obvious reasons, but let me ask
to get a subjective response: would using "return x" be better? On the
one hand, it's not really a return, and it doesn't build on the user
intuition about the control flow aspects of break, but on the other, the
return statement is already prepared to take a value, so its not adding
a "new form" to the existing statement, though it is adding a new and
different context. (We abuse it slightly in lambdas, but people seem OK
with this, probably because they think of lambdas as methods anyway.)
