wt., 4 kwi 2023 o 18:12 Barry Revzin <barry.revzin_at_[hidden]> napisał(a):
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2023, 10:59 AM Marcin Jaczewski via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> I wonder why not make infinite loops simply explicit?
>> Like:
>>
>> ```
>> while (std::infiniti) { }
>> ```
>>
>> Now it will be clear to the reader and compiler that we expect it to
>> be infinite.
>> Reading `std::infiniti` would be considered an observable behavior or something
>> like that.
>>
>> Alternative add attribute to signal to everyone that this loop should not break.
>> We could even reuse attribute:
>>
>> ```
>> [[noreturn]] while(true) {}
>> ```
>>
>> This would have benefits that compilers could more aggressively warn
>> if they see a loop that can't break and therefore create UB.
>
>
> Because the goal is to make all the existing infinite loops non-UB, rather than add some new construct that people would have to go and update all their [not actually broken] code to.
>
> Barry

It's hard to say that is "not broken" as it breaks a contract with the
compiler, of course we can argue who is right there.
Another thing, how do we know if the given loop was not an error? If
we try to guess what the intention was then we can guess wrongly,
better would be to allow the user to mark his intention to the
compiler and other programmers.
Besides, how many loops like this program have? I would expect only
one per program.