Eh.. generally speaking, changing the language is bad because it breaks existing code. We sometimes change it anyways, which I find disappointing, but sometimes there do seem to be good reasons.
But, ... there's no ambiguity in what 'continue.' means in J. https://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/ccont.htm There *is* ambiguity in the english concept associated with the word 'continue' -- natural language is, in general, quite ambiguous. There's even more ambiguity with the concepts associated with the english word 'do' (for example). (And, if we are concerned about the english suggestions: if the relevant control structure at the top of the loop says to stop iterating, 'continue.' would not result in further iterations.) Are you sure that this is a good idea? Thanks, -- Raul On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:08 PM Arthur Anger <[email protected]> wrote: > > The control word 'continue.' may easily be construed in each of three > different ways, to go to: > --the next line in the B-block, without finishing a line it's embedded in > (useful perhaps as a debugging insertion); > --the 'end.' of the for.-group, and its next iteration; > --past the 'end.' of the for.-group, to stop iterating. > > I propose that 'continue.' be replaced by the less ambiguous 'iterate.' > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
