Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 14:29:45 +0100
On 20/12/2024 14.11, Ville Voutilainen via Std-Proposals wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 at 15:06, Jan Schultke <janschultke_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> You have probably found this in the draft already at this point, but here it is:
>>
>> https://eisenwave.github.io/cpp-proposals/break-continue-label.html#opposition-to-n3377
>> contains the full set of criticism towards the N3377 syntax. There are
>> too many to write it all out here.
>
> "Now, decades after the fact, and a million files later, we need to
> invent our own, novel syntax just for labeling loops and switches? No,
> we don’t!"
>
> Yes, we do. It's a name of the loop, scoped to that loop, not a generic label.
Agreed.
Jens
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 at 15:06, Jan Schultke <janschultke_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> You have probably found this in the draft already at this point, but here it is:
>>
>> https://eisenwave.github.io/cpp-proposals/break-continue-label.html#opposition-to-n3377
>> contains the full set of criticism towards the N3377 syntax. There are
>> too many to write it all out here.
>
> "Now, decades after the fact, and a million files later, we need to
> invent our own, novel syntax just for labeling loops and switches? No,
> we don’t!"
>
> Yes, we do. It's a name of the loop, scoped to that loop, not a generic label.
Agreed.
Jens
Received on 2024-12-20 13:29:49