Tracking issue for RFC 2046, label-break-value

[Centril]

This is a tracking issue for RFC 2046 (rust-lang/rfcs#2046).

Steps:

• Implement the RFC (done in Implement label break value (RFC 2046) #50045)
• Adjust documentation (see instructions on forge)
• Stabilization PR (see instructions on forge)

Unresolved questions:

• Use return as the keyword instead of break? RFC: label-break-value rfcs#2046 (comment)
  • Sentiment is strongly in favour of break; call it resolved. Tracking issue for RFC 2046, label-break-value #48594 (comment)

---

Note from shepard: This is a very long thread. If you're just looking for the 2022 conversation in which this ended up stabilized, jump to the report @ #48594 (comment)

[SoniEx2]

Using "return" would have interesting implications for labeled ? (tryop questionmark operator thingy).

[est31]

Use return as the keyword instead of break?

@mark-i-m and @joshtriplett have already spoken out against return, but I'll join in given that it is still apparently an unresolved question.

break (and continue) are only usable with a loop.
If you can break something, you can continue it. (I don't think there's an obvious syntax to pick for continue on a block.)

In C, C++, Java, C#, JavaScript and probably more languages you are usually breaking a switch statement in order to prevent fall-through. Rust has solved this much nicer with | in patterns but people coming from those languages won't really see break as something only for for loops. Especially as Java and JavaScript expose the feature via break as well and not return.

The "rules to remember" argument works into the other direction really well however. From what I can tell it is a commonality of the mentioned languages as well as Rust that return only applies to functions and nothing else. So if you see a return, you know that a function is being left.

Labeling a block doesn't cause errors on existing unlabeled breaks

First, I think this happens very rarely as the labeled break feature is admittedly not something that will be used 10 times per 1000 lines. After all, it will only apply to unlabeled breaks that would cross the boundary of the block, not unlabeled breaks inside the block. Second, users of Rust are accustomed to complaints / error messages by the compiler, they will happily fix them! Third (this is the strongest point I think), if instead of labeling a block you wrap it into a loop, you already need to watch out for unlabeled breaks and there is no error message that conveniently lists the break statements, you've got to hunt for them yourself :).

[nikomatsakis]

Especially as Java and JavaScript expose the feature via break as well and not return.

This to me is the killer point. break from blocks is a thing in many languages. return from blocks...not so much.

[Centril]

Personally, I share @joshtriplett's view on using break instead of return, but it seemed to me like the discussion hadn't been resolved on the RFC... If you believe the question is resolved in the lang team, tick the box with a note =)

[est31]

Just saying that I'm working on this. Don't need mentor instructions. Just to not duplicate any efforts. Expect a PR soon.

[scottmcm]

I'm still in favour of return over break, but I can agree to disagree here. Question resolved.

[topecongiro]

Currently (with rustc 1.28.0-nightly (a1d4a9503 2018-05-20)) rustc does not allow unsafe on a labeled block. Is this expected?

[scottmcm]

@topecongiro Yes, I believe it's intentional that this is currently allowed only on plain blocks. It might change in future, but given that this is such a low-level and unusual feature, I'm inclined towards that being a feature rather than a restriction. (On the extreme, I certainly don't want else 'a: {.)