Subject: Re: [std-proposals] dofor loop
From: Matthew Woehlke (mwoehlke.floss_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-12-27 10:39:27
On 27/12/2019 09.49, Thiago Macieira via Std-Proposals wrote:
> Note: you're unlikely to get "dofor" as a keyword. Please investigate a new
> syntax that does not involve a new keyword and does not break existing code.
Well, *that* much is easy. If I understand what Menashe is asking for:
} for (condition; increment-statement)
...but is it worth it? I just don't know.
(OTOH, I wouldn't mind `do` having an optional init-statement...)
...although that's very close to being an SC break, and I can already
hear compiler vendors complaining about the necessary look-ahead :'(.
STD-PROPOSALS list run by firstname.lastname@example.org
Standard Proposals Archives on Google Groups