> Nobody said the word "impossible", but other than that, I vehemently disagree with your suggestion that that is an "in other words, no". It's "in other words, yes".

I've very specifically asked "do we NEED to, strictly speaking, from a
technical viewpoint?". If you're not going to say "yes" but dodge the
question and tell me how there is a potential for cyclomatic
complexity to be increased, I can only take that as a no.

I couldn't have made this any more of a yes/no question and you still
weren't willing to say "yes".

> > We're like 10 messages into this and still only talking
> > about "perceived complexity" and not a single problem has been brought

> It's not perceived, it's measurable.

Measurable how? How are you going to measure the merits of "label:
for" vs. "for label" ? The cyclomatic complexity is identical, so that
can't be it.

> Oh yeah, like we don't need namespaces, access controls (or separate struct/class) because you can solve all the problems under the sun just by naming conventions.
>
> [pointer conversions, memory safety, ...]
>
> Linter scripts are a solution yet to show its effectiveness. And that's been the case for various suggestions of their use for more than 40 years.

I am aware that you cannot solve all issues with linter scripts, but
this is one of them. You can't dodge this fact by pointing to other
things that linter scripts aren't effective at.

The goal here is simply to ensure that there are two different sets of
names for goto targets and loop names. It's HIGHLY subjective whether
that's even necessary or desirable. It's not about cyclomatic
complexity. It's just a matter of opinion and style, and linter
scripts can enforce opinion and style just fine.