Re: I'd give my right arm for a continue statement

[EdK <lists@...>]

Then, a continue could be written like here:
>    while cond do
>      do :process_item:
>
>                      break :process_item:
>
>      end
>    end

I would far rather have a real, explicitly named continue that applied 
to the "do" of the loop itself.

while cond do :process:
  -- some processing

  if somecondition then
    break :process: -- stop all processing - break out of the loop the label mentions
  elseif someothercondition then
    continue :process: -- resume control of loop where "cond" is checked
  end
  -- other processing

end

In other words, if the label is a requirement of having an actual continue functionality, then I'd put up with that.
But of course, for the above case of continue, the "label" being literally the place where execution would first take place
after a continue would not be correct.

I don't see offhand why an unlabeled loop can't also "continue" if a labeled one could.

I assume this runs into the basic objection to "continue" that has always existed (i.e. where execution next takes place).

Ed Koffeman