RE: why no "continue" statement for loops?

["Bilyk, Alex" <ABilyk@...>]

Funny enough, it is easier to simulate "break" with "continue" then the other way around. Assuming there was no 'break' but 'continue' instead, one could do something like 

local LOOP_BREAK = false
while (not LOOP_BREAK and <whatever>) do
	<whatever2>
	if(<whatever3>) then
		LOOP_BREAK = true; continue;  - this is the "break" statement
	end
	<whatever4>
end

This looks pretty clean and easily readable.

Alex

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Nick Trout [mailto:nick@rockstarvancouver.com] 
Sent:	Tuesday, June 17, 2003 12:48 PM
To:	Lua list
Subject:	RE: why no "continue" statement for loops?


> Every time I write a little program I end up wanting a continue 
> statement for loops. Does this exist already or is there an 
> alternative 
> that I've missed? If not then how to people not write ugly
> "if this then ... if that then ... if other then ... end end 
> end" code to serve the same purpose of just jumping back to 
> the top of the loop?


There's no switch statement either. You might emulate continue using
break?

	done = false
	while not done do
		local i = 1
		while true do
			if ... then
				break -- continue
			end
			...some processing...
			if ..some test... then
				done = true
			end
			break
		end
		i = i+1 -- next iteration
	end
	

--nick