Do maybe the syntax should be different?

In order to avoid confusion around goto labels we could add names in different name, at the end?
1. for (…) outerLoop { . . . }
2. outerLoop for (…) { . . . }

Then they are different then goto labels in syntax since we drop the ‘:’ and goto would not work with those labels.

Cheers,
Filip

> Wiadomość napisana przez Ville Voutilainen via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> w dniu 20 gru 2024, o godz. 13:23:
>
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 at 14:15, Ville Voutilainen
> <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> And even if I wouldn't, it's much easier to reason about a loop-name
>> that just cannot be a label that a goto
>> cannot target. That knowledge categorically turns off some concerns.
>
> I mean, cannot be a label that goto can target. :P
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals