On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 12:19:27AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > Would move this label before condition instead of jumping inside the > nested block since it will always evaluate correctly. > > To this version haven't really gotten why you don't use a legit loop > construct but instead jump from one random nested location to another > random nested location? This construct will be somewhat nasty to > maintain. The construct is weird enough that you should have rather > good explanation in the long description why such a mess. What I'm saying that if I fix a bug, the first version of the fix would probably look something like this is right now. They I think how to write it right. We don't want fixes that just happen to work. Right now I'm worried to take this in since I'm not confident that I haven't some possible corner case, or might still have gotten something just plain wrong. /Jarkko
