break in a module

[Erik Max Francis]

Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Erik Max Francis <max at alcyone.com> wrote:
>> True.  So let's use `in` to represent breaking out of the top-level code of
>> a module.  Why not, it's not the first time a keyword has been reused,
>> right?
>>
>> The point is, if it's not obvious already from that facetious proposal, it's
>> not a good idea to reuse keywords that really read very differently than
>> their original use.  Reusing `break` (or `return`) this way would be rather
>> abusive.
> 
> Yes, using `in` to mean "break out of a block" would obviously be a
> terrible choice, since the word "in" has nothing to do with breaking.
> I really don't see why using `break` to mean "break out of a block" is
> counter-intuitive, especially since as you point out it is already
> used that way for two particular types of blocks.  The proposed usage
> merely adds a third type.
> 
> I think a stronger objection might be that it disrupts the homology of
> `break` and `continue`, since continuing a module is meaningless.

Yes, which could be rephrased as the fact that `break` and `continue` 
are restricted to looping control structures, so reusing `break` in this 
context would be a bad idea.  You know, kind of like the exact point I 
made earlier which you're trying to nitpick in another reply.

-- 
Erik Max Francis && max at alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
  San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis
   Maybe I could see you / When this is over
    -- Scritti Politti