LLM tools degrading, couldn't answer simple question - labels for non-loop scopes

[RedBeforeItWasCool]

Edit, Hmm, Sorry, it has been a few years since I read the online book and I didn't encounter this issue for years because I usually deal with more elegant code, so I asked an AI what the solution would be (to break out of a deeply nested tree of if statements), and it didn't know you can label any scope in rust. Seems like the AI tools are getting worse. I still have to remind them to put the # for #uman readable for elvis.

Thanks @quinedot, It is nice we can label any scope in rust.

Original:

It would be nice if we could label any scope, and then break from them. Similar to (Break with label), but with a better example: I had a complicated set of nested if branching and wanted to break out of them

'my_label : if my_bool
{  // ... do stuff to see if we need to do something else instead
  if stop_this_stuff
  { break 'my_label;
  }
}

it should be equivalent to :

'my_label : loop
{  if my_bool
  {  // ... do stuff to see if we need to do something else instead
    if stop_this_stuff
    { break 'my_label;
    }
  }
  break 'my_loop;
}

(which is the current workaround, I also wrote a macro to generate this, but it looks too ugly)

I guess I could just turn my if-conditions into while-loops that break at the end of the loop. But implementing labels for 'if' statements should be incredibly straightforward for compiler developers, given the equivalence with other syntax.

[jonh]

Considered harmful

[quinedot]

Labeled bare blocks are supported.

-    'my_label: loop {
+    'my_label: {
         if my_bool {
             if stop_this_stuff {
                 break 'my_label;
             }
         }
-        break 'my_label;
     }

In prior discussions, I recall some disagreement on if a breaking if would mean "jump to the next else if conditional or else block" or "jump beyond the entire chain", which probably means that such a feature would be confusing to one camp or another.