Another option would be to redefine 'break' as a void-returning expression, so that:

do { /* yada */ } while (0);

could become:

for ( ; ; break) { /* yada */ }

It's more readable if you know a loop isn't really a loop from the beginning.

On Friday, August 16, 2019, 3:06:05 PM CDT, Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 22:59, Walt Karas via Std-Proposals

<std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
>
> 1. 'break short;' statement would break out of the immediately enclosing compound statement. This would eliminate the need for the 'do { /* yada */ } while (0);' idiom. It would be an error if the immediately enclosing compound statement were a function body. (If the compound statement was a direct component of an iteration statement, 'break short;' would be the same as 'continue;'.)
>
> 2. 'break LABEL;' statement would break out of a directly or indirectly enclosing statement immediately preceded by the label 'LABEL:'. It would be an error if no such statement existed.

Yeah, well, these ideas pop up every now and then. A paper containing
them, http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n3879.pdf,
was discussed and rejected in Rapperswil 2014.