I strongly disagree. Just because a feature doesn’t increase the underlying theoretical complexity doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
As a trivial example C plus “come from” is fundamentally the same language as regular C, and one can trivially translate it to remove come from. That doesn’t mean that adding come from to C would be a good idea.
Incidentally, Googling "C plus come from" only returns two relevant results, the parent comment and a manual for an esoteric programming language called C-INTERCAL that uses the COME FROM statement and compiles to C. [2]
COME FROM is also the foundation of concurrency in some versions of INTERCAL - if there are two COME FROM statements for the same origin, then when execution reaches that point, it forks.
Threaded INTERCAL actually has a very disciplined approach to safety. Each thread gets its own copy of all variables, so threads do not share any mutable data at all. However, they still share the same code, which is also mutable, so they can communicate through that.
On this notion, a very good talk "On the expressive power of programming languages"[1][2] which attempts to provide a formal basis for distinguishing between expressive power of turning complete languages.
As a trivial example C plus “come from” is fundamentally the same language as regular C, and one can trivially translate it to remove come from. That doesn’t mean that adding come from to C would be a good idea.