Hi Simon, could you shortly explain the possible bug in the example given?   To get the boundaries of size-1 and the >=0 correct or to avoid unsigned integer underflow?   auto leads to unsigned and size is 0?   -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von:Simon Schröder via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> Gesendet:Fr 14.02.2025 06:52 Betreff:Re: [std-proposals] for-loops revision (simplification and new syntax) An:std-proposals_at_[hidden]; CC:Simon Schröder <dr.simon.schroeder_at_[hidden]>;  Some of the discussion now steered towards: “Is a new loop syntax useful?”  I would prefer a syntax that leverages the existing range syntax (something similar to Rust or Swift). There is probably one case where such a new syntax would help avoid bugs: for(std::size_t i = vec.size()-1; i >= 0; --i) … i.e. counting down a loop with an unsigned integer. This might be obfuscated a little more if one uses ‘auto’ to declare the loop counter. With a new syntax (that also allows to specify the step size and the step size can be negative) the implementation would hopefully fix this edge case. On Feb 13, 2025, at 10:15 PM, Sebastian Wittmeier via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:  One should add that the else branch is not run in Python, when the loop has been left with a corresponding break instruction.   -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von:Magnus Fromreide via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> If we are talking of loop Pythonisms then a loop else branch does add some value as that case often is a bit contrieved to test for. (The else branch of a loop is executed when the loop condition fails to run the loop more times) -- Std-Proposals mailing list 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