> On Dec 19, 2024, at 2:32 AM, Andrey Semashev via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On 12/19/24 07:53, Oliver Hunt wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yes. I literally just gave an example, which is the entire motivation of
>> this proposal: goto does not support continue or break semantics.
>
> It does. It's just your example (I'm assuming, it's the one quoted
> above) is incorrect wrt. the existing goto semantics.


Please, show me goto supporting the same semantics of labeled continue:

label1: while (cond) {
   for (….) {
     if (x) continue label1;
   }
}

label1: for (int i = 0;i < n;i++) {
   for (….) {
     if (x) continue label1;
   }
}

label1: for (auto a: vec) {
   for (….) {
     if (x) continue label1;
   }
}



>
>>> Because the motivation I've seen so far is "because people think goto is
>>> bad because... we don't like it" which is subjective. I, for one, do not
>>> see how a labeled break is better than a goto. In fact, I think it's
>>> worse because it breaks the existing label usage. Previously, switch and
>>> goto would jump to a label, now break and continue with a label jump
>>> somewhere else instead of the label.
>>>
>>> Honestly, people, just use goto. There's nothing wrong with it.
>>
>> The semantics of goto are garbage, and all uses of it are coupled with
>> “but don’t use it in ways X, Y, or Z” , where X, Y, *and* Z are *all*
>> valid in the language.
>
> Goto is as straightforward as it possibly can be. More straightforward
> than break or continue, for instance, since unlike those, goto's target
> is clearly marked. The "don't use goto" narrative is garbage and
> subjective. Goto is objectively useful in some contexts and there's
> nothing wrong with using it there. Same as any other tool.

It is “straight forward” that does not mean it is good.

>
> Instead you're inventing another tool that is basically the same

(1) Not inventing: this is a common syntax and idiom that is available in more or less every other C-esque syntax language
(2) It is not the same: goto does not support continue
(3) It is completely unstructured which means you have no defense against code motion causing radically different behavior

I get that you believe this is unnecessary, but the entirety of your argument is “I can do this [questionably] with goto”, and that same argument applies to all language provided loop constructs and I don’t see you arguing that while/for loops are unnecessary as we have goto, or that virtual methods are unnecessary as we have function pointers, etc.

—Oliver