Re: proposal: state machine syntax also usable for continue / nested break

[David Manura <dm.lua@...>]

On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:03 AM, David Manura <dm.lua@math2.org> wrote:
> I don't local variables can completely replace labels in the above
> proposal (as opposed to [1]).  However, my above suggestion for
> implicitly naming variables could incorporate the loop variable name
> in the label.  Therefore, :forfor: could be replaced with :kk: .

err, correction: don't -> don't think; naming variables -> naming
labels.  In other words, this would be consistent with the proposed
semantics:

 for kk, vv in pairs(tt) do
   for k, v in pairs(t) do
     if condition1 then break end    -- same as `break :k:`
     if condition2 then break :continue: end
     if condition3 then break :redo: end
     if condition4 then break :kk: end
   end
 end