My thoughts on this are to add a third keyword alongside `break` and `continue` to loops that allow you to push another (loop) stack frame and descend into a tr

My thoughts on this are to add a third keyword alongside `break` and `continue` to loops that allow you to push another (loop) stack frame and descend into a tree-like data structure. For exposition, lets seperate loop initialization from the rest, make `continue` mandatory to repeat the loop with another specified value (i.e. the loop implicitly ends without a continue) and lets say `descend` to recurse into the tree. sum = 0; loop (node = tree.root) { sum += node.value; if (node.left) descend node.left; if (node.right) descend node.right; } Compare with a linear loop: sum = 0; loop (i = 0) { if (i >= array.length) break; sum += array[i]; continue i + 1; } The `descend` keyword differs from `continue` in that its more of a continuation - control flow will continue from that point once it is done. You could make this more functional and less imperative (and I'd be surprised if such things don't exist as libraries in some functional languages). Yes ultimately we can transform this to recursive functions and compile it that way... but for imperative languages (especially those without closures) something like the above might be useful. Arguably the above loops are _more_ imperative and less declaritive than the standard ones from the C family. You could add a functional twist by breaking with a value (which is the result of the overall `loop` expression).