I threw away my efforts to explain my idea, lucidity seems to elude me.
Instead, here's the gist:
for continue; x < n; x++ {
...
}
Currently, the compiler rejects "continue" in the initialisation field and,
given that it's called "initialisation", that makes sense.
If instead the "continue" actually caused the loop to skip one iteration,
it may serve a useful purpose and, it seems to me, would still be
compatible with the Go 1.0 promise.
It is obvious to me what such an option ought to mean, but maybe there are
alternative interpretations that would make the enhancement too ambiguous
or stupid. I'm curious to hear what others think.
Lucio.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
