World: r3wp

(you should not)

Of course, this construct is just for R2, for R3 you have native 
solution

No, just wondering.

A different idea, instantly causing any R2 cycle to "understand continue":

cc: func [
	{convert a cycle body to "understand" CONTINUE}
	body [block!]
] [
	compose/only [catch/name (body) 'continue]
]

continue: func [[throw]] [throw/name none 'continue]

; usage:
for n 1 5 1 cc [
	if n < 3 [continue]
	print n
]

Hope, this is sufficient even for Graham ;-)

Any name improvements (the 'cc name looks a bit unnatural)

?

Could you put CONTINUE into the CC func context?

(I mean, wouldn't it be better ?)

yes, that can be done

Ah, but then you need to bind BODY.

no problem with that, but it would be incompatible with R3 CONTINUE, 
then

oh I had forgotten it was in R3.

better outside then.

CC -> MAKE-CONTINUABLE ;)

Very understandable, but a little bit too long for my taste

I can't think of a better name. The reason is because it shouldn't 
be there at all. I think all the rebol loop constructs should be 
adjusted to use CC by default.

All REBOL loop constructs use CONTINUE, but, unfortunately, not in 
R2 :-(

Well, there's a wish...

I don't think you get CONTINUE in R2, if you don't want this "cheap 
one"

Hmmm... hard decision.

On the balance of things, I think it would make things better; code 
more readable and more consistent with R3 code, so I'm for it.
A better name for CC is definitely needed, though.

What amazes me, (as always in REBOL) is, that the hardest part is 
to find the best name, not to implement the feature :-)

Well, that just means that the name of a feature is really part of 
the feature.

Regarding the CONTINUE in R2 - I may be wrong, though, maybe Brian 
would know better?

But, of course, Carl would know best!

What do you mean "Regarding the CONTINUE in R2" ?

That you think it's not implemented in any loop construct (even under 
a different name) ?

I wrote: "I don't think you get CONTINUE in R2". the above is just 
explaining, that I may not be the one knowing the policy in this 
respect

replace "get CONTINUE" by "get native CONTINUE" to make it more understandable

Ah yes.

Well... I think we should still aim high and make a wish.

Sure

How about a C-AWARE name, it looks a bit shorter, would it sill be 
acceptable?

sill: :still (pardon the typo)

http://www.rebol.org/view-script.r?script=c-aware.r

CC makes me think of "Call with Continuation", but I agree that MAKE-CONTINUABLE 
is a little long. Just CONTINUABLE? Without 'continue in the name 
somehow, even if abbreviated, you lost the connection to the keyword.

It would be nice to have /PART refinement for SWAP.

CC is also commonly known in digital photo area as Comment & Critique 
....

Ladislav, your request to make HALT catchable was in CureCode already 
as #1520. Please add your concerns in a comment there. That ticket 
needs a use case to catch HALT in addition to everything else.

According to that use case CATCH/all would catch QUIT/now as well 
- you should mention that too.

There is no need to worry about the name CC - it won't be used. A 
CATCH option is more likely.

Oh, nevermind about the CC. I missed the change in subject :)

CONTINUE is more likely to be added as a native in R2 than it is 
as a hack. We already have BREAK, so the mechanism is there.

use case is simple to catch halt... make sure sandboxed code doesn't 
stop the interpreter.  same for quit/now.  only the outer app should 
be allowed to use those.

Right, but the top-level script *is* the outer app, so these need 
to be made available at least at that level.

yes... which is why putting a catch/all when executing code in a 
sandbox (I often use CONTEXT [ ]   to do so)  is very usefull to 
prevent the outer script from halting or quiting because of some 
externally loaded code..

If MAKE object! specs catch RETURN and EXIT, that's an error.

I don't think it does.

CONTEXT catching RETURN and EXIT is error #520.