# Break with value alternatives **URL:** \ **Category:** language design\ **Created:** [November 5, 2019, 2:18pm UTC](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/break-with-value-alternatives/11240 "2019-11-05T14:18:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 14
**Author:** ![RustyYato](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/internals.rust-lang.org/rustyyato/32/13627_2.png) [@RustyYato](https://internals.rust-lang.org/u/RustyYato)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2019, 4:04pm UTC](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/break-with-value-alternatives/11240/14 "2019-11-05T16:04:29Z")
> [@Pre-RFC: Break with value in for/while loops](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/pre-rfc-break-with-value-in-for-while-loops/11208/45): > > OK. Or maybe we could ask the mods to split it; I don't think there's any need for secrecy here. But I'm fine with either. I just saw this, do you know if there is a way to change a PM to a new thread? I think that would work better. Sorry about any possible confusion on this front. > [@RE: Pre-RFC: Break with value in for/while loops](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/re-pre-rfc-break-with-value-in-for-while-loops/11238/4): > > Are you satisfied with this description? Yes, this looks fine. To me, having a feature live as a library as much as possible is more enticing than having it baked into the compiler. Given that we would want generators anyways as a means for co-routines, I think that extending for loops to handle generators would be nicer. > [@Pre-RFC: Break with value in for/while loops](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/pre-rfc-break-with-value-in-for-while-loops/11208/41): > > Well, much like @Yato, I'd prefer if `break` worked consistently, but I might accept this solution as a concession to backwards compatibility. How would this work under your desugaring? Will it be a type-based desugaring? --- _[View the full topic](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/break-with-value-alternatives/11240)._