220 3596 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?Q?Klaim_=2D_Jo=C3=ABl_Lamotte?= Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: "break break ;" etc. to break out of nested loops Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 22:26:07 +0200 Lines: 98 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <1f964e4b-2762-43b8-85e5-41392926b07a@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01294d0ca643b804d9a2e5e9 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1365273491 30211 80.91.229.3 (6 Apr 2013 18:38:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 18:38:11 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBD3NR2WQQ4IBBYHG7SFAKGQEQIOKP3I@isocpp.org Sat Apr 06 20:38:12 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-ia0-f200.google.com ([209.85.210.200]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UOXDm-00050J-UZ for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Sat, 06 Apr 2013 19:48:11 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-ia0-f200.google.com with SMTP id b35sf16636865iac.3 for ; Sat, 06 Apr 2013 10:48:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:received-spf:mime-version :x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=XhCnNXwMgNmvi/uSXsnAmm6QUO/hn+dy3imR0mkOcQ8=; b=GIOlVIbW3lu+l6cGFCN7gs/vXXEX4rYr4OswiFoIXqzCYw8t6X9YQHtcOyhn3VMfDq 3HZB4sQfK+WYlcdDliZPF+xdj+H+MUaMDFjZhJyHgNhtouG4Zy1lq+bYBD+IKry9H5Gu uDbgaIloEcaRRjApYUBC/KwUqM4rVM9zGC2C6msfPQqjgmtboyj4rQ20nk3wJRv7rjvd 349aZ1lDUDcmFVcI5bMU3giFS/bWVe940FadUAkh6uZkt8MTsNiBaE2jauMcrwUVMrj3 8y4gkXbRZuHBDtEhCdnfh120CYWbX5vOxCcnHs564YJKmbh3dq0F8c3OPzhnMLLkzCSc X-Received: by 10.182.89.101 with SMTP id bn5mr3432940obb.0.1365193569049; Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:26:09 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.182.251.137 with SMTP id zk9ls527096obc.72.gmail; Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:26:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.43.103 with SMTP id v7mr9087105obl.17.1365193567801; Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:26:07 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-ob0-x22b.google.com (mail-ob0-x22b.google.com [2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22b]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fz8si5553761obb.6.2013.04.05.13.26.07 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:26:07 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mjklaim@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22b as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22b; Original-Received: by mail-ob0-f171.google.com with SMTP id v19so937683obq.30 for ; Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:26:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.60.17.132 with SMTP id o4mr9317379oed.12.1365193567648; Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:26:07 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.76.173.34 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 13:26:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1f964e4b-2762-43b8-85e5-41392926b07a@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: mjklaim@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of mjklaim@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22b as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mjklaim@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:3596 Archived-At: --089e01294d0ca643b804d9a2e5e9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:23 PM, wrote: > I suggest the following syntax: > > The *break break* statement jumps out of the second-nearest enclosing *do, > for, switch, *or *while *statement. > The *break break* *break *statement jumps out of the third-nearest > enclosing *do, for, switch, *or *while *statement. > The *break break* *break break *statement jumps out of the fourth-nearest > enclosing *do, for, switch, *or *while *statement. > That would make the intention (of the author of the code) very obscure. Also, most C++11 new keywords and syntaxes targets reduction of code to write relative to code structure complexity. To me, your proposition goes backward to this. I remember having read some ideas about keywords for jumping out of several loop blocks, but they almost are all opposed by suggestions adding functions (add another layer of abstraction). A feature for getting out of these imbricated loops would be cool on short term, but on long term I think avoiding imbricating blocks is far better. Joel Lamotte -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/?hl=en. --089e01294d0ca643b804d9a2e5e9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:23 PM, <temptony@freemail.hu> w= rote:
I suggest the following syntax:

The=A0break=A0break statement jumps out of the sec= ond-nearest enclosing=A0do, for, switch,=A0or=A0while=A0state= ment.
The=A0break=A0break=A0break=A0statement jumps out = of the third-nearest enclosing=A0do, for, switch,=A0or=A0while=A0= statement.
The=A0break=A0break=A0break break=A0= statement jumps out of the fourth-nearest enclosing=A0do, for, switc= h,=A0or=A0while=A0statement.

That would make the intention (of the author of the = code) very obscure.

Also, most C++11 new keywords and syntaxes target= s reduction of code to write relative to code structure complexity.
To me, your proposition goes backward to t= his.


I remember having rea= d some ideas about keywords for jumping out of several loop blocks,
but they almost are all opposed =A0by sugg= estions adding functions (add another layer of abstraction).

A featur= e for getting out of these imbricated loops would be cool on short term,
but on long term I think avoiding imbricat= ing blocks is far better.

<= div class=3D"gmail_extra" style>Joel Lamotte

--
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-pro= posals/?hl=3Den.
 
 
--089e01294d0ca643b804d9a2e5e9-- .