P3568 R1 break label; and continue label;
Opened this issue · 4 comments
This was discussed during the
Monday AM Session in Hagenberg.
The following polls were taken:
P3568R0: break label; and continue label; EWGI prefers the N3355 syntax reusing goto labels.
| SF | F | N | A | SA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 0 |
Result: Not Consensus
P3568R0: break label; and continue label; Forward to EWG.
| SF | F | N | A | SA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
Result: Consensus
EWG is encouraged to see this to help with the N3355/N3377 preference if possible, else we expect this to just propose whatever WG14 comes up with.
EWG saw this in Hagenberg and took two preference pools. Neither of these shows strong preference either way, so WG14 is free to do what they want. Then we took another pool if we are interested in the feature itself and it got consensus.
P3568R0: EWG likes syntax N3355: for (...) { }
| SF | F | N | A | SA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 16 | 5 | 9 | 5 |
P3568R0: EWG likes syntax for N3377 (...) { }
| SF | F | N | A | SA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | 13 | 5 | 5 | 8 |
P3568R0: If C has it we are interested in this feature too.
| SF | F | N | A | SA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16 | 21 | 5 | 2 | 1 |
Result: Consensus.
WG14 saw N3377 at Graz 2025-02-24, discussed it as an alternative to the N3355 syntax, and voted as follows:
N3377: Would WG14 like to see a paper changing loop name syntax at a future meeting?
| F | N | A |
|---|---|---|
| 6 | 11 | 9 |
Result: direction against
The authors of N3377 have expressed that they are no longer pursuing the paper, so P3568 is going ahead with the N3355 syntax.