AW: [std-proposals] for-loops revision (simplification and new syntax)

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@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:

AW: [std-proposals] for-loops revision (simplification and new syntax)

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@lists.isocpp.org>

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@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals