break in a module

[Ian Kelly]

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.