And within function bodies, it is an advantage, if the names cannot shadow each other.   -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von:Simon Kraemer via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> Gesendet:Di 07.01.2025 13:45 Betreff:Re: [std-proposals] Bringing break/continue with label to C++ An:std-proposals_at_[hidden]; CC:Simon Kraemer <sikraemer_at_[hidden]>; You are right - misconception on my end. Am Di., 7. Jan. 2025 um 13:18 Uhr schrieb Lénárd Szolnoki via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden] <mailto:std-proposals_at_[hidden]> >: On 7 January 2025 08:57:18 GMT, Simon Kraemer via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden] <mailto:std-proposals_at_[hidden]> > wrote: >But using labels will cause problems with this: > >func1() >{ >  outer: for (…) >  { >      inner: for(…) >      { >          break outer; >      } >  } >} > >func2() >{ >  outer: for (…) // label already defined >  { >      inner: for(…) // label already defined >      { >          break outer; >      } >  } >} No, labels are scoped to function bodies, that  wouldn't be ill-formed. > >Am Di., 7. Jan. 2025 um 09:44 Uhr schrieb Simon Schröder via Std-Proposals < >std-proposals_at_[hidden] <mailto:std-proposals_at_[hidden]> >: > >> On 7. Jan 2025, at 07:44, Tiago Freire via Std-Proposals < >> std-proposals_at_[hidden] <mailto:std-proposals_at_[hidden]> > wrote: >> >> >> It's because we don't want things that you don't need from outstaying >> their welcome. A label is a thing that outstays long after they are no >> longer welcome. >> It's probably fine, but do I need to keep constantly looking at my >> shoulder to see if that label is going to stab me in the back? >> Let me forget things that I no longer need, and keep things clean. >> >> >> I agree with this. Naming things is hard. Most of the time I would expect >> to see something like this: >> outer: for (…) >> { >>     inner: for(…) >>     { >>         break outer; >>     } >> } >> I just know that I want to break the outer loop. If I had a real name for >> that loop it could most likely be a function. I’m not sure we know how to >> name loops. >> >> Because ‘outer’ and ‘inner’ are the most obvious names it would be nice if >> I can reuse those names for another loop in the same function (I personally >> tend to ignore Clean Code when I have an algorithm that I just want to >> write down top to bottom in a single function). If these are labels I >> cannot have 2 loops both named ‘outer’ in the same function. >> >> Somebody might argue instead that this would be the reason to use labels >> because they cannot be duplicate. It would avoid confusion if two loops >> have the same name inside the same function. >> -- >> Std-Proposals mailing list >> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden] <mailto:Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]> >> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals >> -- Std-Proposals mailing list Std-Proposals_at_[hidden] <mailto:Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals -- Std-Proposals mailing list Std-Proposals_at_[hidden] https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals