Would it be possible to add a parameter to the REPEAT and EXIT statements that is the number of the loop you want to REPEAT or EXIT, in nested loops?

So if you have a nested loop as follows:

for x = 1 to 20
for y = 1 to 20
!some code
exit 2
next y
next x

The "exit 2" would cause you to exit both loops or "repeat 2" would exit the inner loop and repeat the outer loop.

Well, it's certainly possible, but I'm not sure it would either easy, or advisable. The problem implementing it is the same one that is motivating you - the hassle of having to pass status information on exit from an inner loop to the outer loop. The reason why I'm not sure it's advisable is that it's hard (for me at least) to see how this would have any advantage over just using a goto, either in structure, readability or maintainability.

I know there is a stigma against goto's, and you would probably find plenty of people willing to criticize the idea of exiting an inner loop by goto'ing some label in an outer loop, but at least it is explicit. In contrast, exit 2 could be difficult to follow (depending on how complex the loops are, how well they are indented, etc.), and very easy to be overlooked when modifying the code (i.e. adding an intermediate loop layer).

Just to be clear, believe it or not, nothing gets "broken" internally if you goto out of a for/next or do/loop. For all practical purposes, the exit statement is equivalent to a goto to the statement following the end of the loop.

Now, I could imagine that it might be useful to have an exit'all statement to exit all loops. But repeat'all seems a bit non-sensical.

BTW, in your example, "repeat 2" would be equivalent to a simple "exit", unless of course there was additional code between the "next y" and "next y".

By coincidence, I woke up last night thinking about the variation of the read statement you asked about awhile back. How about I focus on getting that done while we leave this open for further comment?

I see your point.

As you point out a goto would be a fine solution; although, the I could see merit in the exit'all statement.

Certainly no rush, or even a requirement to do this.

FWIW: I use this format in another basic language, maybe it would be an acceptable alternative.

found=0
for x = 1 to z until found=1
for y = 1 to q until found = 1

some code that may set found = 1

next y
next x

Well I guess a better example would have been

for x = 1 to 20
for y = 1 to 20
for z = 1 to 20

"repeat 1" or "exit 1"

next z
next y
next x

So that you exit to the first loop "for x=1". but putting a for'x: after "next y" and goto'ing "for'x" will work fine. I just don't normally think about using goto's.

Lost in all this is that Jack actually woke up thinking about a software request...!

Perhaps we all need to give Capn Jack a break!!