such stuff could be with aliases maybe accomplished, not sure of your req's
On Sat, Oct 30, 2021, 17:03 Oğuz <oguzismailuy...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 4:50 PM Greg Wooledge <g...@wooledge.org> wrote: > > As Chet said, it's counterintuitive. Most people don't expect function A > > to be able to affect loops inside function B. > > I do, and a subshell can prevent function A from affecting loops > inside function B. But that is not a real problem, you wouldn't call, > say `break 3', when you're only 2 loop levels deep in a function > unless you wanted to exit from the loop from within the function is > called after returning. > > > It's a violation of scope. > > It's a violation of lexical scope, I'm asking why not implement > dynamic scope, what's wrong with it? > > > > > Can you name *any* other language where functions can break out of their > > caller's loops? The only thing that comes to mind for me is C's > "longjmp", > > which I've never used even once. (Not that I do any C programming these > > days, but back in the 1990s, I did.) > > As far as I know `longjmp' is far more advanced than shell's > break/continue. I can't name another language, but netbsd sh, busybox > sh, and zsh are shells that implement dynamically scoped break and > continue. > > > > > What are you actually trying to do? > > > > Nothing. Idle curiosity. > >