On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 at 15:20, Jan Schultke <janschultke_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> > Yes, we do. It's a name of the loop, scoped to that loop, not a generic label.
>
> The proposal also makes the argument that you can achieve
> disambiguation through naming conventions.

That's no disambiguation, it's just a convention, and there's no
particular reason for code
to follow such a convention. But when a loop name is not a traditional
label, gotos can't
jump to them, no matter what convention your code does or does not follow.

> The two different name
> syntaxes of N3377 don't solve a parsing ambiguity, they just increase
> comfort. Do you actually disagree with that? What's the issue with
> just using naming conventions for this?

That naming conventions are not actual semantics?

> > > "This is a readability issue; with the exception of goto and labels,
> > > function bodies can be understood by reading them from top to bottom."
> >
> > The claim is not correct for member functions defined inside a class
> definition before data member declarations.
>
> This is why I've specifically said "function bodies" :)

Are member function bodies not function bodies?