Re: Why is break not syntactically required to be the last statement in a block (anymore)?

[Lorenzo Donati <lorenzodonatibz@...>]

On 28/07/2022 17:15, Egor Skriptunoff wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 5:49 PM Lorenzo Donati wrote:
>
> > I would welcome a syntax like "break 4", to exit four loop levels.
>
> Should the following statements also be valid?
>
> break 0x4
>
> break 3+1  -- arithmetic expression calculable at compile time
>
> local level <const> = 3
> break level+1  -- arithmetic expression with <constants> in it
That smells like computed goto, and don't see the need for that.
FWIW any syntax that allowed to specify a level would be good.
To avoid issues with what you mention, in order to just specify a 
"static" level, also something like this:

break<4>

break ::4::

 or

break @4

or whatever other syntax that is easily parseable with no excessive 
lookahead and no ambiguities or weird interaction with current language 
features.

Don't get me wrong, I love Lua has introduced "goto", but it is an 
advanced features and using it excessively *do* lead to spaghetti code.
I don't like the fact that goto was meant to emulate features that in a 
structured language should be reflected by (well established) control 
structures (e.g. multilevel break/continue).