1 Revision History

Since [P2806R1], switched syntax from do return to do_return to avoid ambiguity. Added section on lifetime.

Since [P2806R0], some more discussion about implicit last value vs explicit return, reflection, and a grammar fix to the still-incomplete wording.

2 Introduction

C++ is a language built on statements. if is not an expression, loops aren’t expressions, statements aren’t expressions (except maybe in the specific case of expression;).

When a single expression is insufficient, the only solution C++ currently has as its disposal is to invoke a function - where that function can now contain arbitrarily many statements. Since C++11, that function can be expressed more conveniently in the form of an immediately invoked lambda.

However, this approach leaves a lot to be desired. An immediately invoked lambda introduced an extra function scope, which makes control flow much more challenging - it becomes impossible to break or continue out of a loop, and attempting to return from the enclosing function or co_await, co_yield, or co_return from the enclosing coroutine becomes an exercise in cleverness.

You also have to deal with the issue that the difference between initializing a variable used an immediately-invoked lambda and initializing a variable from a lambda only differs in the trailing (), arbitrarily deep into an expression, which are easy to forget. Some people actually use std::invoke in this context, specifically to make it clearer that this lambda is, indeed, intended to be immediately invoked.

This problem surfaces especially brightly in the context of pattern matching [P1371R3], where the current design is built upon a sequence of:

pattern => expression;

This syntax only allows for a single expression, which means that pattern matching has to figure out how to deal with the situation where the user wants to write more than, well, a single expression. The current design is to allow { statement } to be evaluated as an expression of type void. This is a hack, which is kind of weird (since such a thing is not actually an expression of type void), but also limits the ability for pattern matching to support another kind of useful syntax: => braced-init-list:

auto f() -> std::pair<int, int> {
    // this is fine
    return {1, 2};

    // this is ill-formed in P1371
    return true match -> std::pair<int, int> {
        _ => {1, 2}
    };
}

There’s no way to make that work, because { starts a statement. So the choice in that paper lacks orthogonality: we have a hack to support multiple expressions (which are very important to support) that is inventing such support on the fly, in a novel way that is very narrow (only supports void), that throws other useful syntax under the bus.

What pattern matching really needs here is a statement-expression syntax. But it’s not just pattern matching that has a strong desire for statement-expressions, this would be a broadly useful facility, so we should have an orthogonal language feature that supports statement-expressions in a way that would allow pattern matching to simplify its grammar to:

pattern => expr-or-braced-init-list;

3 do expressions

Our proposal is the addition of a new kind of expression, called a do expression.

In its simplest form:

int x = do { do_return 42; };

A do expression consists of a sequence of statements, but is still, itself, an expression (and thus has a value and a type). There are a lot of interesting rules that we need to discuss about how those statements behave.

3.1 Scope

A do expression does introduce a new block scope - as the braces might suggest. But it does not introduce a new function scope. There is no new stack frame. Which is what allows external control flow to work (see below).

3.2 do_return statement

The new do_return statement has the same form as the return statement we have today: do_return expr-or-braced-init-listopt;. It’s behavior corresponds closely to that return, in unsurprising ways - do_return yields from a do expression in the same way that return returns from a function.

While do_return value; and return value; do look quite close together and mean fairly different things, the leading do we think should be sufficiently clear, and we think it is a good spelling for this statement.

Other alternative spellings we’ve considered:

• do return (in the previous revision of this paper, which has an ambiguity with do ... while loops)
• do_yield (presented to EWG in Issaquah as the initial pre-publication draft of this proposal)
• do yield
• do break (similarly to return, we are breaking out of this expression, but is less likely to conflict since break is less likely to be used than return and also the corresponding break value; is invalid today)
• => (or some other arrow, like <- or <=)

3.3 Type and Value Category

The expression do { do_return 42; } is a prvalue of type int. We deduce the type from all of the do_return statements, in the same way that auto return type deduction works for functions and lambdas.

An explicit trailing-return-type can be provided to override this:

do -> long { do_return 42; }

If no do_return statement appears in the body of the do expression, or every do_return statement is of the form do_return;, then the expression is a prvalue of type void.

Falling off the end of a do expression behaves like an implicit do_return; - if this is incompatible the type of the do expression, the expression is ill-formed. This is the one key difference with functions: this case is not undefined behavior. This will be discussed in more detail later.

This makes the pattern matching cases [P2688R0] work pretty naturally:

x match {
    0 => { cout << "got zero"; };
    1 => { cout << "got one"; };
    _ => { cout << "don't care"; };
}

x match {
    0 => do { cout << "got zero"; };
    1 => do { cout << "got one"; };
    _ => do { cout << "don't care"; };
}

Here, the whole match expression has type void because each arm has type void because none of the do expressions have a do_return statement.

Yes, this requires an extra do for each arm, but it means we have a language that’s much easier to explain because it’s consistent - do { cout << "don't care"; } is a void expression in any context. We don’t have a compound-statement that happens to be a void expression just in this one spot.

auto f(int i) {
    return i match -> std::pair<int, int> {
        0 => {1, 2};          // ill-formed
        _ => std::pair{3, 4}; // ok
    }
}

auto f(int i) {
    return i match -> std::pair<int, int> {
        0 => {1, 2};          // ok
        _ => std::pair{3, 4}; // ok
    }
}

Here, the existing pattern matching cannot support a braced-init-list because { is used for the special void-statement-case. But if we had do expressions, the grammar of pattern matching can use expr-or-braced-init-list in the same way that we already do in many other places in the C++ grammar. This example just works.

3.4 Copy Elision

All the rules for initializing from do expression, and the way the expression that appears in a do_return statement is treated, are the same as what the rules are for return.

Implicit move applies, for variables declared within the body of the do expression. In the following example, r is an unparenthesized id-expression that names an automatic storage variable declared within the statement, so it’s implicitly moved:

std::string s = do {
    std::string r = "hello";
    r += "world";
    do_return r;
};

Note that automatic storage variables declared within the function that the do expression appears, but not declared within the statement-expression itself, are not implicitly moved (since they can be used later).

3.5 Control Flow

In a regular function, there are four ways to escape the function scope:

1. a return statement
2. throwing an exception
3. invoking a [[noreturn]] function, std::abort() and std::unreachable()
4. falling off the end of the function (undefined behavior if the return type is not void)

The same is true for coroutines, except substituting return for co_return (and likewise falling off the end is undefined behavior if there is no return_void() function on the promise type).

For a do expression, we have two different directions where we can escape (in a non-exception, non-[[noreturn]] case): we either yield an expression, or we escape the outer scope. That is, we can also:

1. return from the enclosing function (or co_return from the enclosing coroutine)
2. break or continue from the innermost enclosing loop (if any, ill-formed otherwise)

Additionally, for point (4) while we could simply (for consistency) propagate the same rules for falling-off-the-end as functions, then lambdas (C++11), then coroutines (C++20), we would like to consider not introducing another case for undefined behavior here and enforcing that the user provides more information themselves.

That is, the rule we propose that the implementation form a control flow graph of the do expression and consider each one of the six escaping kinds described above. All do_return statements (including the implicit do_return; introduced by falling off the end, if the implementation cannot prove that it does not happen) need to either have the same type (if no trailing-return-type) or be compatible with the provided return type (if provided). Anything else is ill-formed.

Let’s go through some examples.

auto a = do {
    if (cond) {
        do_return 1;
    } else {
        do_return 2;
    }
};

auto b = do {
    if (cond) {
        do_return 1;
    } else {
        do_return 2.0;
    }
};

auto c = do {
    if (cond) {
        do_return 1;
    }

    do_return 2;
};

auto d = do {
    if (cond) {
        do_return 1;
    }
};

int e = do {
    if (cond) {
        do_return;
    }
}, 1;

int f = do {
    if (cond) {
        do_return 1;
    }

    throw 2;
};

int outer() {
    int g = do {
        if (cond) {
            do_return 1;
        }

        return 3;
    };
}

int h = do {
    if (cond) {
        do_return 1;
    }

    std::abort();
};

enum Color {
    Red,
    Green,
    Blue
};

void func(Color c) {
    std::string_view name = do {
        switch (c) {
        case Red:   do_return "Red"sv;
        case Green: do_return "Green"sv;
        case Blue:  do_return "Blue"sv;
        }
    };
}

void func() {
    for (;;) {
        int j = do {
            if (cond) {
                break;
            }

            for (something) {
                if (cond) {
                    do_return 1;
                }
            }

            do_return 2;
        };
    }
}

To reiterate: the implementation produces a control flow graph of the do expression and considers all yielding statements (including the implicit do_return; on falling off the end, if the implementation considers that to be a possible path) in order to determine correctness of the statement-expression. The kinds of control flow that escape the statement entirely (exceptions, return, break, continue, co_return) do not need to be considered for purposes of consistency of yields (since they do not yield values).

3.5.1 noreturn functions

The language currently has several kinds of escaping control flow that it recognizes. As mentioned, exceptions, return, continue, break, and co_return. And, allegedly, goto.

But there’s one kind of escaping control flow that it does not currently recognize: functions marked [[noreturn]]. A call to std::abort() or std::terminate() or std::unreachable() escapes control flow, for sure, but today this is just an attribute:

int i = do {
    if (cond) {
        do_return 5;
    }

    std::abort();

    // we know control flow never gets here, so we should not need to
    // insert an implicit "do_return;"
};

Pattern Matching has this same problem - it needs to support arms that might std::terminate() or are std::unreachable(), so it that proposal currently is introducing a dedicated syntax to mark an arm as non-returning: !{ std::terminate(); }. Which is… less than ideal.

However, the rule in 9.12.10 [dcl.attr.noreturn]/2 is:

2 If a function f is called where f was previously declared with the noreturn attribute and f eventually returns, the behavior is undefined.

That is normative wording which we can rely on. The above do expression can only fall off the end if std::abort returns, which is already undefined behavior. We can avoid introducing any new undefined behavior ourselves as part of this feature.

That is: invoking a function marked [[noreturn]] can be considering an escaping control flow in exactly the same way that return, break, throw, etc., are already.

Note that this violates the so-called Second Ignorability Rule suggested in [P2552R2], which is a great reason to ignore that rule.

3.5.2 Always-escaping expressions

Consider:

int i = do -> int {
    throw 42;
};

This is weird, but might end up as a result of template instantiation where maybe other control paths (guarded with an if constexpr) actually had do_return statements in them. So it needs to be allowed.

It does lead to an interesting question: what is decltype(do { return; })? We already define decltype(throw 42) to be void, so would this also be void? It’s kind of an odd choice, and it would be nice if we had a specific type for an escaping expression. While we could come up with the right language facility to allow the conditional operator (?:) and pattern matching to work correctly by ignoring arms that are always-escaping, user-defined code would have no way of differentiating between a real void expression (std::print("Hello {}!", "EWG") is actually an expression of type void) and an artificial one (std::abort() is not really the same thing).

We could instead introduce a new type, std::noreturn_t (as an easier-to-type spelling of ⊥), change decltype(throw e) to be std::noreturn_t (since nobody actually writes this - code search results are exclusively in compiler test suites) and treat the return types of [[noreturn]] functions as std::noreturn_t. Then the type system gains understanding of always-escaping expressions/statements and the rules for pattern matching, the conditional operator, do expressions, and arbitrary user-defined libraries just fall out.

See reflector discussion here.

3.5.3 goto

Using goto in a do expression has some unique problems.

Jumping within a do expression should follow whatever restrictions we already have (see 8.8 [stmt.dcl]). Jumping into a do expression should be completely disallowed (we would call the statement of a do expression a control-flow limited statement).

Jumping out of a do expression is potentially useful though, in the same way that break, continue, and return are:

    for (loop1) {
        for (loop2) {
            int i = do {
                if (cond) {
                    goto done;
                }

                do_return value;
            };
        }
    }
done:

Breaking out of multiple loops is one of the uses of goto that has no real substitute today. The above example should be fine. But referring to any label that is in scope of the variable we’re initializing needs to be disallowed - since we wouldn’t have actually initialized the variable. We need to ensure that the 8.8 [stmt.dcl] rule is extended to cover this case.

Also, while computed goto is not a standard C++ feature, it would be nice to disallow this example, courtesy of (of course) JF Bastien (in this case, we are referring to a label that is within v’s scope. We’re not jumping to it directly, but the ability to jump to it indirectly is still problematic):

#include <stdio.h>

struct label {
    static inline void* e;
    int v;

    label()
    try
        : v(({
            fprintf(stderr, "oh\n");
            e = &&awesome;
            throw 1;
            42;
        }))
    {
        fprintf(stderr, "no\n");
        awesome:
        fprintf(stderr, "you\n");
    } catch(...) {
        fprintf(stderr, "don't\n");
        goto *e;
    }
};

int main() {
    label l;
}

3.5.4 Should falling off the end be undefined behavior?

Consider:

int i = do {
    if (cond) {
        do_return 0;
    }
};

Is this statement ill-formed (because there is a control path that falls off the end of the do expression, as discussed in this section) or should this statement be undefined behavior? The latter would be consistent with functions, lambdas, and coroutines (and not a if-you-squint-enough kind of consistency either, this would be exactly identical).

It would make for a simpler design if we adopted undefined behavior here, but we think it’s a better design to force the user to cover all control paths themselves.

3.6 Lifetime

One important question is: when are local variables declared within a do expression destroyed?

Consider the following:

auto f() -> std::expected<T, E>;
auto g(T) -> U;

auto h() -> std::expected<U, E> {
    auto u = g(do -> TYPE {
        auto result = f();
        if (not result) {
            return std::unexpected(std::move(result).error());
        }
        do_return *std::move(result);
    });
    return u;
}

The use of TYPE above is meant as a placeholder for either T or T&&, as we’ll explain shortly.

What is the lifetime of the local variable result? There are three possible choices to this question:

1. It is destroyed at the next }. This is the most consistent choice with everything else in the language.
2. It is destroyed at the end of the statement in which it is appears (i.e. at the end of the full initialization of u). In other words, at the end of the full-expression (the real full-expression, not the nested full-expressions inside of the do expression).
3. It behaves as if it has local scope of the surrounding scope and is destroyed at the end of that outer scope, which in this case would be the end of h().

The consequence of (1) is that result is destroyed before we enter the call to g. This means that if the do expression returned a reference (i.e. TYPE was T&&), that reference would immediately dangle. We would have to yield a T. This loses us some efficiency, since ideally both the do expression and g could just take a T - but now we have to incur a move.

The consequence of (2) is that we can yield a T&& because result isn’t going to be destroyed yet, and we don’t have a dangling reference. Unless we rewrite it this way:

auto f() -> std::expected<T, E>;
auto g(T&&) -> U;

auto h() -> std::expected<U, E> {
    T&& t = do -> T&& {
        auto result = f();
        if (not result) {
            return std::unexpected(std::move(result).error());
        }
        do_return *std::move(result);
    };
    return g(std::move(t));
}

With (1), in order to avoid dangling, the do expression must return a T (t can still be an rvalue reference, it would just bind to a temporary). With (2), we can allow the do expression to return T&&, but t would to be a T and not a T&&, since result is going to be destroyed at the end of the statement. We still incur a move, just slightly later.

Only with (3) - delaying destroying result until the closing of the innermost non-do-expression scope - is the above valid code that does not lead to any dangling reference.

Note that the above example is specifically mentioned in [P2561R2]’s section on lifetimes, where it is quite valuable that the equivalent sugared version does not dangle:

auto f() -> std::expected<T, E>;
auto g(T&&) -> U;

auto h() -> std::expected<U, E> {
    T&& t = f().try?;
    return g(std::move(t));
}

Choosing (3) allows the control flow operator proposal to be simply a lowering into a do expression.

On the other hand, consider this example:

int i = do {
        std::lock_guard _(mtx);
        do_return get(0);
    } + do {
        std::lock_guard _(mtx);
        do_return get(1);
    };

Each do expression is locking the same mutex, mtx. With (1), the two lock_guards are each destroyed at their nearest }, so the result of this code is that we lock the mutex, call get(0), unlock the mutex, then lock the mutex, call get(1), and unlock the mutex (or possibly the second do expression is evaluated first, doesn’t matter). Following the usual C++ lifetime rules, most people would expect this to be valid code.

With either of the two approaches to extending lifetime, either (2) or (3), this deadlocks. The two lock_guards aren’t destroyed until after the initialization of i, or even later, and so whichever one is locked first is still alive when the second one is locked.

That means the choice is between extending the lifetime of variables to avoid dangling references and keeping the lifetime of variables the same to maintain the usual C++ destructor rules. The familiarity and expectation of the latter is so strong that (1) is likely the only option. After all, scoped lifetimes is one of the fundamental rules of C++.

This does suggest that there needs to be some way to explicitly extend a variable to the outer scope. After all, a do expression’s control flow behaves as if its in that outer scope (we return from the enclosing function, continue the enclosing loop, etc.), so there is definitely a compelling argument to me made that variables belong in that scope as well. But they probably need some sort of annotation - something like a reverse lambda capture:

auto f() -> std::expected<T, E>;
auto g(T&&) -> U;

auto h() -> std::expected<U, E> {
    // The "anti-capture" of result means that it's actually declared in the
    // outer scope, as if before the variable t. If no such variable result in
    // the do expression's scope, the expression is ill-formed.
    T&& t = do [result] -> T&& {
        auto result = f();
        if (not result) {
            return std::unexpected(std::move(result).error());
        }
        do_return *std::move(result);
    };
    return g(std::move(t));
}

3.6.1 Conditional Lifetime Extension

An interesting sub-question on lifetimes is what does this do:

auto prvalue() -> T;

auto f() -> void {
    // lifetime extension, reference bound to temporary
    T const& r1 = prvalue();

    // dangling
    T const& r2 = []() -> T const& { return prvalue(); };

    // lifetime extension??
    T const& r3 = do -> T const& { do_return prvalue(); };
}

r1 is our familiar lifetime extension case - a reference is bound to a temporary. r2 is definitely dangling. The temporary is destroyed and definitely does not last as long as r2. But what about r3, is it more like r1 or r2?

In this case, we see the entire do expression - so unlike the general callable case, it may actually be possible for lifetime extension to work here.

But as we’re thinking about it, let’s make the example slightly more complicated:

auto lvalue() -> T const&;
auto prvalue() -> T;

auto g(bool c) -> void {
    T const& r4 = do -> T const& {
        if (c) {
            do_return lvalue();
        } else {
            do_return prvalue();
        }
    }

    T const& r5 = do -> T const& {
        if (c) {
            do_return lvalue();
        } else {
            T x = prvalue();
            do_return x;
        }
    }
}

If r3 doesn’t dangle (and we do lifetime extension), does r4? Well, presumably. But here we have a form of runtime-conditional lifetime extension. That’s still seemingly doable - we would effectively have an optional<T> __storage that is declared before r4 and then r4 is either a reference into that or whatever we got from lvalue().

But even if we made r4 work, r5 now almost certainly cannot - now we’re definitely not binding a temporary to a reference, this is quite adrift from our usual rules.

Which makes us wonder if there’s really any value in being adventurous here - and instead probably consider that there is no lifetime extension in any of these cases, not in r3, not in r4, and definitely not in r5.

3.7 Grammar Disambiguation

We have to disambiguate between a do expression and a do-while loop.

In an expression-only context, the latter isn’t possible, so we’re fine there.

In a statement context, a do expression is completely pointless - you can just write statements. So we disambiguate in favor of the do-while loop. If somebody really, for some reason, wants to write a do expression statement, they can parenthesize it: (do { do_return 42; });. A statement that begins with a ( has to then be an expression, so we’re now in an expression-only context.

A previous iteration of the paper used do return (with a space), which would lead to an ambiguity in the following in the context of a do expression:

do return value; while (cond);

This could have been parsed as a do return statement followed by an infinite loop (that would never be executed because we’ve already returned out of the expression) or as a do-while loop containing a single, unbraced, return statement. If we use the do_return spelling, there’s no such ambiguity, since the above can only be a do ... while loop.

Also because we would unconditionally parse a statement as beginning with do as a do-while loop, code like this would not work:

do { do_return X{}; }.foo();

Such code would also have to be parenthesized to disambiguate, which doesn’t seem like a huge burden on the user.

3.8 Prior Art

GCC has had an extension called statement-expressions for decades, which look very similar to what we’re proposing here:

({
    int y = foo();
    int z;
    if (y > 0) z = y;
    else z = -y;
    z;
})

do {
    int y = foo();
    if (y > 0) {
        do_return y;
    } else {
        do_return -y;
    }
}

The reason we’re not simply proposing to standardize the existing extension is that there are two features we see that are lacking in it that are not easy to add:

1. The ability to specify a return type, which is critical for allowing statement-expressions to be lvalues.
2. The ability to support yielding out of different branches of if, due the implicit nature of the yield.

For (1), there is simply no obvious place to put the trailing-return-type. For (2), you can’t turn ifs into expressions in any meaningful way. It is fairly straightforward to answer both questions for our proposed form.

Let’s also take the example motivating case from [P2561R2] and compare implicit last expression to explicit return:

auto foo(int i) -> std::expected<int, E>

auto bar(int i) -> std::expected<int, E> {
    int j = do {
        auto r = foo(i);
        if (not r) {
            return std::unexpected(r.error());
        }
        *r // <== NB: no semicolon
    };

    return j * j;
}

auto foo(int i) -> std::expected<int, E>

auto bar(int i) -> std::expected<int, E> {
    int j = do {
        auto r = foo(i);
        if (not r) {
            return std::unexpected(r.error());
        }
        do_return *r;
    };

    return j * j;
}

In the simple cases, explicit last value (on the left) will be shorter than an explicit return (on the right). But implicit last value is more limited. We cannot do early return (by design), which means that a do expression would not be able to return from a loop either. We would have to extend the language to support if expressions, so that at the very least the first example above could be made easier - which would add more complexity to the design.

There’s also the question of void expressions - which are where many of the pattern matching examples come from. In Rust, for instance, there is a differentiation based on the presence of a semicolon:

let a: i32 = { 1; 2 };
let b: () = { 1; 2; };

This is a simple (if silly) example of a block expression in Rust. The value of the block is the value of the last expression of the block (Rust has both if expressions and loop expressions) - in the first case the last example is 2, so a is an i32, while in the second example 2; is a statement, so the last value is the… nothing… after the ;, which is () (Rust’s unit type). This seems like too subtle a distinction, and one that’s very easy to get wrong (although typically the types are far enough apart such that if you get it wrong it’s a compiler error, rather than a runtime one):

auto a = do { 1; 2 };   // ok, a is an int
auto b = do { 1; 2; };  // ill-formed, b would be void (unless Regular Void is adopted)

But this would mean that our original example would work, just for a very different reason (rather than being void expressions due to the lack of do_return, they become void expressions due to not having a final expression):

x match {
    0 => do { cout << "got zero"; };
    1 => do { cout << "got one"; };
    _ => do { cout << "don't care"; };
}

Ultimately, we feel that the simplicity of the proposed design and its consistency and uniformity with other parts of the language outweigh the added verbosity in the simple (though typical) cases.

3.9 What About Reflection?

A question that often comes up, for any language feature: if we had reflection and, in particular, code injection: would we need this facility?

The answer is not only yes, but reflection is a good motivating use-case for this facility. Because the language does not have any kind of block expression today, adding support for one would increase the amount of ways that code injection could work.

One example might be, again, the control flow operator proposal in [P2561R2]. If reflection allows me to write a hygienic macro that does code injection, perhaps we could write a library such that try_(E) would inject an expression that would evaluate in the way that that paper proposes. But in order to do such a thing, we would need to be able to have a block expression to inject. This paper provides such a block expression.

3.10 Where can do expressions appear

gcc’s statement-expressions are not usable in all expression contexts. Trying to use them at namespace-scope, or in a default member initializer, etc, fails:

int i = ({      // error: statement-expressions are not allowed outside functions
    int j = 2;  //        nor in template-argument lists
    j;
});

In such contexts, there is a much smaller difference than a statement-expression and an immediately invoked lambda since you don’t have any other interesting control flow that you can do - the expression either yields a value or the program terminates.

But if we’re going to add a new language feature, it seems better to allow it to be used in all expression contexts - we would just have to say what happens in this case. Especially since if we’re adding a feature to subsume immediately invoked lambdas, it would be preferable to subsume all immediately invoked lambdas, not just some or most.

We can think of a do expression as simply behaving like an immediately invoked lambda in such contexts. Not in the sense of allowing return statements (there’s still no enclosing function to return out of), but the sense that any local variables declared would exist in a function stack. But this is probably more of a compiler implementation detail rather than a language design detail.

In short: do expressions should be usable in any expression context.

4 Wording

This wording is quite incomplete, but is intended at this point to simply be a sketch to help understand the contour of the proposal.

Add to 7.5 [expr.prim]:

primary-expression:
  literal
  this
  ( expression )
  id-expression
  lambda-expression
  fold-expression
  requires-expression
+ do-expression

Add a new clause [expr.prim.do]:

1 A do-expression provides a way to combine multiple statements into a single expression without introducing a new function scope.

do-expression:
  do trailing-return-typeopt compound-statement

2 The compound-statement of a do-expression is a control-flow-limited statement ([stmt.label]).

Change 8.3 [stmt.expr] to disambugate a do expression from a do-while loop:

1 Expression statements have the form

expression-statement:
  expressionopt;

The expression is a discarded-value expression. All side effects from an expression statement are completed before the next statement is executed. An expression statement with the expression missing is called a null statement. The expression shall not be a do-expression.

[Note 1: Most statements are expression statements — usually assignments or function calls. A null statement is useful to supply a null body to an iteration statement such as a while statement ([stmt.while]). — end note]

Add to 8.7.1 [stmt.jump.general]:

1 Jump statements unconditionally transfer control.

jump-statement:
  break ;
  continue ;
  return expr-or-braced-init-listopt ;
+ do_return expr-or-braced-init-listopt ;
  coroutine-return-statement
  goto identifier ;

Add a new clause introducing a do_return statement after 8.7.4 [stmt.return]:

1 The do expression’s value is produced by the do_return statement.

2 A do_return statement shall appear only within the compound-statement of a do expression.

5 References