On 2023-02-17 at 13:30, Hypatia (of) Sva via Std-Proposals wrote:
> Hello Members or WG21,
>
> I have written up this proposal for labeled breaking and continuation,
> because I was kind of annoyed that this feature, which Fortran got in
> 1990, is still not present in neither C nor C++. I would be interested
> if anyone would have comments on both the content and form ot this
> proposal. As by the advice on isocpp.org I took a draft from
> https://github.com/mpark/wg21/, namely the one about pattern matching,
> and changed it to what I wanted to write, I would be interested if this
> form seems appropriate or if I made any mistakes here. I would also be
> interested to know how the document numbers come about, it seemed to be
> based on the date so that's what I went with, but that may be wrong so
> I'm waiting for your feedback on this.
>
> Hypatia of Sva.
>
> Formatted, see:
> https://github.com/hypatia-of-sva/documents/blob/main/P230217R0.pdf
>
> Markdown Text (see also
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hypatia-of-sva/documents/main/P230217R0.md ):
>

The critique might be to question how useful this really is. Personally
I have never had much problem with exiting nested loops. Occationally I
have used a condition flag, but most often the solution is to put the
loop in a function/lambda and use a return to terminate the outer loop.

I have never, ever, felt a need to restart an outer loop from an inner
loop. Does that really happen?

Hardly ever use continue either, as an

if (condition)
    continue;

most often can be replaced by

if (!condition)
{
    // rest of the loop
}

so I feel no strong need to "improve" continue at all.


The goto error and cleanup seems like something the C committee perhaps
could be interested in. In C++ we already have destructors for the
cleanup, so not much need for another way of doing a similar thing.


And also, I find the label in the left margin looking really, really
ugly. But perhaps that is a good thing, as it urges me to avoid using it!