Re: continue keyword - since there is goto now, maybe reconsider continue?

[Jonas Thiem <jonasthiem@...>]

The label scope (I have to admit I don't use goto or labels much)
certainly makes the goto alternative more useful. I also like the tail
recursion alternative.

Still, I would like to let you know that I would still prefer
"continue" in a few cases (mainly short loops where a separate
function with tail recursion may seem to be a bit over the top).
"continue" just seems so short and self-explanatory, and IMHO it has a
greater clarity than a goto statement where I need to check where the
jump level is at first.

I may be the only one who thinks that way. In that case, feel free to
ignore my feedback.

(Regarding bloat, since "goto" is already in I'd guess adding continue
will barely require much code - I may be totally wrong on this
assumption. If there is actual demand for this (that is, not just me)
I hope you would at least reconsider, even if it means a slightly
increased Lua code base.)

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Roberto Ierusalimschy
<roberto@inf.puc-rio.br> wrote:
>> It needs twice the lines (goto statement + label), and you need to
>> make up a unique jump label per loop if you got multiple loops in a
>> function with such a continue workaround.
>
> Just to get the facts straight: you do not need a unique label per loop,
> unless you have *nested* loops using 'continue'. Labels have block
> scope, so a label inside a loop is not visible inside another
> non-intersecting loop.
>
> -- Roberto
>