On 24/05/2023 15:02, language.lawyer--- via Std-Proposals wrote:
> if (Failed(Condition0)) goto skip_Code_to_execute;
> if (Failed(Condition1)) goto skip_Code_to_execute;
>
> Code_to_execute;
>
> skip_Code_to_execute:
> ...
1) If "Code_to_execute" contains declaration with non-vacuous
initialization, then this is ill formed as per:
https://eel.is/c++draft/stmt.dcl#2
Sure, but wrap `Code_to_execute` in a pair of curly braces and you're all set.
Anyway, isn't this just asking for a macro `#define ONCE(...) do { __VA_ARG__ } while (0);` and that such a macro should go into the International Standard? No thanks.
David Brown wrote:
> I think a better idea here would be to propose allowing "break" inside an "if" statement.
As in `if (x > 5) break;`? I think you should rethink that idea. ;)