Dijkstra did not say anything about "break" and "continue".

Moreover, "continue" has been invented only in 1974, as one of the few novel features of the C programming language, some years after the Dijkstra discussion.

Both simple "break" and "continue" are useful, because unlike "goto" they do not need labels, yet the flow of control caused by them is obvious.

Some languages have versions of "break" and "continue" that can break or continue multiple nested loops. In my opinion, unlike simple "break" and "continue" the multi-loop "break" and "continue" are worse than a restricted "goto" instruction. The reason is that they must use labels, exactly like "goto", but the labels are put at the beginning of a loop, far away from its end , which makes difficult to follow the flow of control caused by them, as the programmer must find first where the loop begins, then search for its end. Therefore they are definitely worse than a "goto".

Instead of having multi-loop break and continue, it is better to have a restricted "goto", which is also useful for handling errors. Restricted "goto" means that it can jump only forwards, not backwards, and that it can only exit from blocks, not enter inside blocks.

These restrictions eliminate the problems caused by "goto" in the ancient non-structured programming languages, which were rightly criticized by Dijkstra.