On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 at 16:03, Pau Miquel Montequi Hernandez <pau.montequi@gmail.com> 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.