'goto', as an indicator of good language

[Nick Treleaven]

On Friday, 9 September 2022 at 15:57:45 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> On 9/9/22 11:40 AM, Nick Treleaven wrote:
>> On Friday, 9 September 2022 at 14:22:51 UTC, Steven 
>> Schveighoffer wrote:
>>>
>>> Instead of switch, you can use:
>>> ```d
>>> do {
>>>    ...
>>> } while(false);
>>> ```
>>>
>>> And then use a break inside.
>> 
>> Not the same, continue applies to the do then, not an outer 
>> loop. Also not clear until the end of the construct that it's 
>> not a loop.
>
> If we are talking about wrapping existing code that might 
> contain a continue, you need to also consider that the existing 
> code might contain a break. In both cases, you could label the 
> target and use a targeted continue or break statement.

If you know there's no break but there is a continue, you don't 
have to use a label.

> But again, goto is better here.
>
>> 
>>> But honestly, all this looks like "I want to avoid goto at 
>>> all costs". The original looks better to me.
>> 
>> It's easier to reason about switch because you don't have to 
>> read the whole function looking for the matching label.
>
> You don't though. Just search for it. Just like you would have 
> to search for the matching closing brace of the switch. At 
> least in the case of the label, you can use text search, and 
> not have to account for nested braces.
>

Why would you need to stop reading the code sequentially and 
lookup the closing brace? With goto you need to to understand 
what you're looking at. That's my point.