SPUG: Using last in non-loop blocks

[El JoPe Magnifico]

Related question: Will this limitation still apply in Perl6?
The foreword to Apocalypse 4 says the following:

  [...] control flow must be able to leak out of blocks in a
  controlled fashion.  Obviously, falling off the end of a block
  is the most "normal" way, but we need to exit blocks in other
 "abnormal" ways as well. Perl 5 has several different ways of
  exiting a block: return, next, last, redo, and die, for instance.

  The problem is that these various keywords are hard-wired to
  transfer control outward to a particular built-in construct,
  such as a subroutine definition, a loop, or an eval. That works
  against our unifying concept that every block is a closure.
  In Perl 6, all these abnormal means of block exit are unified
  under the concept of exceptions. A return is a funny kind of
  exception that is trapped by a sub block. A next is an exception
  that is trapped by a loop block.

And later in the same doc, in the RFC 199 discussion:

  The interesting policy question as we go on will be whether a
  given construct responds to a given exception or not. Some
  exceptions will have to be restricted in their use. For instance,
  we should probably say that only explicit sub declarations may
  respond to a return.

I saw no hints as to a decision on whether "last" would be allowed
inside a non-loop block, though the general mood in decisions so far
seems to be toward permissiveness unless there is a convincing reason
to the contrary.  And I can't think of one in this case.
 -jp

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 ced at carios2.ca.boeing.com wrote:
> diagnostics provides an explanation:
>
> Can't "last" outside a loop block at ./test1.pl line 6 (#1)
>     (F) A "last" statement was executed to break out of the current block,
>     except that there's this itty bitty problem called there isn't a current
>     block.  Note that an "if" or "else" block doesn't count as a "loopish"
>     block, as doesn't a block given to sort(), map() or grep().