If it *is* useful, it occurs to me that (1) this looks a lot like the
try ... except ... pattern, and (2) breaks are generally perceived as
exceptional exits from a loop.  Instead of "if break [LABEL]", "except
[LABEL]" might work, although the semantic difference between labels
and exceptions might get a ton of pushback.
In the related thread I suggested using `except`, but it was largely ignored.

*If* you want tou propose clearer syntax for this, please extend the loop syntax, not the ‘if’ syntax. So, ‘case ... zero’ makes more sense than ‘if [not] break’.
So I understand, does this mean that any extended syntax for this should be totally new and not draw on existing constructs such as `try-except` or `if-else`?
Or just that the additional clarity should come from  extending the loop rather than the implicit `if`?


This email is confidential and may contain copyright material of members of the Ocado Group. Opinions and views expressed in this message may not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of the members of the Ocado Group.

If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately and delete all copies of this message. Please note that it is your responsibility to scan this message for viruses.

References to the "Ocado Group" are to Ocado Group plc (registered in England and Wales with number 7098618) and its subsidiary undertakings (as that expression is defined in the Companies Act 2006) from time to time. The registered office of Ocado Group plc is Buildings One & Two, Trident Place, Mosquito Way, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9UL.