On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 at 16:03, Pau Miquel Montequi Hernandez <
pau.montequi_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> You're absolutely right! doing nothing is considerably easier than doing
> something :P
>
> But afaik that's not the criteria to consider or reject proposals, maybe
> I'm wrong. Apart from the correct and true fact "*If you include a header
> and write the loop 'like this' you can do the same*" is there any other
> reason to end the discussion?
>

I didn't suggest the discussion should end. But I do think that avoiding
the need to include a header is not a good justification for a language
change.

Many C++ features exist precisely so that interesting and useful things can
be done in libraries, instead of pushing more and more features into the
core language.

A language feature to implicitly create a tuple-like type that can
initialize a structured binding would allow you to write this without
<tuple>:

  for (auto [b,e,o] = ?(in, in+size, out); ...)

but it would also be usable in other places, so would give more benefit
than just alternative syntax for `for` loops.