Re: Inconsistency in rescuability of "return"

Rick DeNatale wrote:
>> I'm a little surprised that any of these trigger the rescue clauses
>> since neither return or break is an exception.
> 
> And I was about to add, unless....
> 
> And then several others pointed out that these cases do indeed throw exceptions.
> 
> So 1.9 is doing more syntactic analysis here.
> 
> Also, when I tried the two examples Charles gave in his follow up
> post, 1.9 on the last one produces:
> 
> rescuebreak.rb:35:in `eval': (eval): (eval):1: Can't escape from eval
> with break (SyntaxError)

I'd be more than happy to tighten these things up and make them 
syntactic errors, but the inconsistency in 1.8 behavior for these is 
frustrating from an implementation perspective. Perhaps this is why 
Koichi changed their behavior...he's essentially removed the 
inconsistency by reducing the places you can expect flow control to work.

- Charlie