What Sustrik asks for here is an imperative context where failure is a native operation. Obviously, this is most useful in a delimited way and this is exactly a maybe monad.

    if (foo) {
        <whatever>
    } else {
        if (bar) {
        <whatever>
        } else {
            if (baz) {
            <whatever>
            } else {
                if (spam) {
                    <whatever>
                } else {
                    ...
                    <etc>
                }
            }
        } 
    }

He also wouldn't use break or continue or multiple returns.

As this article says, it led to really really annoying-to-read code.

    (cons a
          (cons b
		(cons c
		      (cons d . nil))))
    
    (list
     a
     b
     c
     d)

It's one of the reasons why I wish more languages had a generalized switch statement (i.e. one that accepted arbitrary code as conditions, not just constants compared to a single value), preferably with a way to (explicitly, preferably) code a fall-through.

It means that you cannot necessarily translate it into a jump table, true. But it means that you can write code much more concisely, on the flip side. And it remains slightly readable.

  do_stuff1();
  while (!condition()) {
    do_stuff2(); 
    do_stuff1(); 
  }