Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!AI.AI.MIT.EDU!ALAN
From: ALAN@AI.AI.MIT.EDU (Alan Bawden)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Subject: problems/risks due to programming language, stories requested
Message-ID: <707179.900303.ALAN@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: 4 Mar 90 03:24:10 GMT
References: <zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sunybcs!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!ur-valhalla!micropen!dave.at.think.com>
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 18


    Date: 2 Mar 90 19:19:01 GMT
    From: David F. Carlson
    ... What break does is *very* well defined

Of course there is more to designing a good programming language than
making sure that it is "well defined".

    and is no more prone to misinterpretation that any other non-linear
    control flow statement in any other PL....

I beg to differ.  You would be much less likely to make the kind of error
that started this discussion if you could give -names- to switch, while, do
and for statements, and if break and continue allowed you to name the
particular statement that was to be broken or continued.

Common Lisp has the RETURN-FROM special form because we learned this lesson
from the original MacLisp RETURN special form.