* David Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-12-05 15:45]:
> I tried to break down the reasons for wanting to write such
> loops different ways:
>
> 1) Simple code […]
> 2) Clear code […]
> 3) Self-documenting code […]
Yes, exactly right.
> What we need is something a bit like the "continue" block,
> except that it gets executed before the loop- condition is
> checked the first time. So what if we split the loop-body into
> two parts?
>
> repeat { something(); }
> while ( condition(); )
> { something_else(); }
>
>
> Now the condition is in the middle and is syntactically
> separate. (It's still not up front, but if the first block is
> really long, you can always... add a comment!)
I actually don’t think putting the condition up front is the most
desirable constellation. I just want the condition syntactically
highlighted and separated from both the loop body and the
invariant enforcement.
In fact, it seems more desirable to have the invariant
enforcement up top because the order of the code then corresponds
to the order of evaluation. That is the reason I wasn’t quite
happy with its being rendered as a closure trait.
Funnily enough, I think you’re onto something here that you
didn’t even notice: the following has the right semantics, apart
from the fact that it doesn’t perform any work:
repeat {
@stuff = grep { !.valid }, @stuff };
} while @stuff;
Now if we had a NOTFIRST (which would run before ENTER just as
FIRST does, but on *every* iteration *except* the first), then
we could trivially attain the correct semantics and achieve all
desired results:
repeat {
@stuff = grep { !.valid }, @stuff };
NOTFIRST {
.do_something( ++$i ) for @stuff;
}
} while @stuff;
The really nice thing about this is that the blocks are nested,
so that any variable in scope for the invariant enforcement will
also be in scope in the NOTFIRST block without the user ever
having to arrange another enclosing scope.
* David Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-12-05 16:50]:
> Well, you don't need a comment -- why not allow the condition to come
> first?
>
> repeat while ( condition(); )
> { something(); },
> { something_else(); }
>
> You need the comma there because the final semicolon is
> optional, and we don't want Perl to think it's an ordinary loop
> followed by an independent block. Probably better is to name
> the introductory block, and then programmers as well as
> compilers know that something unusual is going on:
>
> repeat while (condition)
> preamble { something }
> { something_else }
What I don’t like about these solutions is: how do you indent
them? If you try multiple statements on multiple lines within the
blocks, then suddenly there is no good and natural indentation
style for at least one of the blocks.
Also, you are supposed to be able to leave the parentheses off
the `while` condition in Perl 6, and then it breaks down
visually, particularly if you throw an arrow in there.
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
