I agree that a new keyword seems like overkill, which is one reason I asked
for other's ideas.
I don't particularly agree that there is no need for a loop that checks its
condition after instead of before, but in any case it's not a big deal.
Mostly I am interesting in what others think.
On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 5:23:20 PM UTC-5, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 2:00 PM, <milo.chr...@gmail.com <javascript:>>
> wrote:
> > I rather like Go's loops, they are simple and easy to remember, and the
> > problem so many languages have with dozens of different loop keywords is
> > neatly avoided. Too many loop types is simply a pain, but I think that
> one
> > more wouldn't hurt...
> >
> > Basically the following would be helpful in some cases without being too
> > "odd" compared to what is existing:
> >
> > do{
> > // <loop body actions>
> > }for condition
> >
> > Is this a good idea? Why or why not? Anyone else have a better idea for
> the
> > syntax? (depending on how you look at it either "do" or "for" is
> redundant,
> > but removing "do" would probably require too much lookahead)
>
> Adding a new keyword "do" would break existing programs.
>
> The loop is equivalent to
>
> for first := true; first || condition; first = false {
> ...
> }
>
> This is not the kind of change we are going to make at this stage of
> the language.
>
> Ian
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
