I agree with the first part, but not the second - 'for' is far more 'Go like' in terms of clarity and meaning
Compare the first few meanings of 'loop': http://www.dictionary.com/browse/loop?s=t with 'for': http://www.dictionary.com/browse/for?s=t Although I think 'desirous' would be an excellent new keyword: desirous of: a longing for something desirous <cond> { } Jamie On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 8:56:35 PM UTC+1, matthe...@gmail.com wrote: > > These threads are akin to bike shedding thus a waste of time. > > > In storytelling relief is part of good tragedy. > > I consider the overloading of for to be a plus because for, while, > do-while are just loops with conditions. Maybe ‘loop’ is a more Go-like > keyword. > > loop i, e := range c { > > Matt > > On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 8:46:36 AM UTC-5, M P r a d e s wrote: >> >> Can anybody point me to a single discussion on golang-nuts that led to a >> significant syntax change? These threads are akin to bike shedding thus a >> waste of time. >> >> Adding while provide nothing of value in a language that supports basic >> looping. And for those who compare if and switch arguing it is equivalent, >> you can't do type switches with an if statement. >> >> This is discussion is going nowhere. >> > -- 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.
