Description
Lint rules complain about this:
outer:
for(constrowofrows){for(consteltofrow){if(elt===0)break outer;// compute on elt}}which is the most succinct way to stop processing the current row and all following rows, once a zero is encountered anywhere.
They complain in two ways, first no-restricted-syntax complains about any label of any kind. Then no-labels complains twice, first about the label again, and second about the break statement with a label.
Expected behavior
No complaints. I'd probably be ok with a complaint about this:
label: {vara=f();if(something())break label;//etc}as that's weird (but apparently legal). However labels are needed on looping constructs for exactly the purpose outlined here.
Actual behavior
Three lint complaints.
Description
Lint rules complain about this:
which is the most succinct way to stop processing the current row and all following rows, once a zero is encountered anywhere.
They complain in two ways, first no-restricted-syntax complains about any label of any kind. Then no-labels complains twice, first about the label again, and second about the break statement with a label.
Expected behavior
No complaints. I'd probably be ok with a complaint about this:
as that's weird (but apparently legal). However labels are needed on looping constructs for exactly the purpose outlined here.
Actual behavior
Three lint complaints.