http://purl.org/tcl/home/man/tcl8.4/TclCmd/continue.htm

----
[LES]: Suppose the following code:

 foreach  i  $List1  { 
 
     foreach  j  $List2  { 

        if  [some condition] {continue}

        eval {blah blah blah}
     }
 }

[Continue] interrupts the foreach j loop. But what if I wanted it to break the foreach i loop?

Place the [[foreach i]] command in a proc and use [return]
instead of [continue].

[Lars H]: Or use [breakeval] as follows

  foreach i $List1 { 
     breakeval-aware foreach j $List2 { 
        
        if  {[some condition]} then {
           breakeval {continue} ; # Break out of j loop, do a continue for the i loop.
        }

        eval {blah blah blah}
     }
 }

[MG] April 20th 2005 - In [PHP], [continue] (and [break]) accept an argument that tells it how many nesting levels to continue/break for, slightly-similar to return's -code option. How hard would it be to add something like that into Tcl? Since neither [break] nor [continue] accept any arguments right now, as long as it defaulted to 1 it would have total backwards-compatability, and would, IMHO, be more "natural" than the above.

[schlenk]  Did you try [return] -code continue -level ...

[LES]: These suggestions all involve creating yet another proc for my code, which is not really what I was looking for. I was indeed thinking of [PHP]'s continue/break argument, as [MG] mentioned. I asked the question in the first place because I already have a solution, but it forces me to add more code to an already very long proc that I am trying to do some liposuction on. Some sort of "loop depth argument" would help me make it shorter. Anyway, here is my current solution:

 foreach  i  $List1  { 
 
     set  _break  0
     foreach  j  $List2  { 

        if  [some condition] {incr _break;  break }

        eval {blah blah blah}
     }

     if { $_break > 0 }  { continue }
 }

Conclusion: if you come from [PHP], now you know that there is no continue/break "loop depth argument". But several workarounds are offered above (and below?).

[LV] Given that there's already the weird return arguments, what is the argument against
enhancing continue as described above?  Is there a technical issue with the proposal?


----
[[
[Tcl syntax help] |
[Arts and crafts of Tcl-Tk programming] |
[Category Command] |
[Category Control Structure]
]]