> goto isn't going anywhere, you still need a workable language in which you can properly express what things mean without ambiguity.

Yes, and the proposal isn't going to remove goto either. It will
become even less common than it already is though, though it's going
to take many more years to replace it entirely, if that's even
possible. Probably not.

The point is simply that goto has been gradually phased out
programming languages for over 50 years now. It should not receive
high-priority in language decisions. We should care about good,
intuitive syntax for labeled breaks and continues first and foremost,
and then consider how this can remain compatible with existing goto
uses.

I mean, dear lord, what if we make goto slightly less intuitive to use
by stealing the label syntax for loop labels? It just doesn't matter,
as long as we don't break existing uses.