> De: "John Rose" <john.r.r...@oracle.com> > À: "Guy Steele" <guy.ste...@oracle.com> > Cc: "amber-spec-experts" <amber-spec-experts@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.ste...@oracle.com | > guy.ste...@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 `: >> break`). >> (5) In the year 2364, this can be further generalized to allow `continue >> return >> x;`. >> (6) Those who want new language features to really jump out will surely be >> satisfied. > 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; Rémi
