I feel `skip` may have been a better name, but disagree with it being logically difficult to parse beyond that. If I'm reading a loop and see for x in y {

I feel `skip` may have been a better name, but disagree with it being logically difficult to parse beyond that. If I'm reading a loop and see for x in y { if exclusions.contains(x) { skip; } if x.children.length == 0 { skip; } if os.file.exists(x.name) { skip; } ... I instantly know that processing for those elements is skipped, and they won't be relevant for the rest of the loop. Whereas if I see for x in y { if !exclusions.contains(x) { if x.children.length != 0 { if !os.file.exists(x.name) { ... I feel like there's still mental overload with not knowing where those `if` blocks end, and so having to keep the conditions in mind. It doesn't immediately tell me that the rest of the loop is being skipped. The `log()` mistake seems no less likely to happen using early-returns in function instead, and I'd argue nesting checks actually introduces more room for that kind of error overall, where you append something at the end within the wrong set of brackets, compared to a flatter structure.