On 2018-05-13 11:34, Hugh Fisher wrote:
> I still think a while { ... } loop would be a worthwhile
> addition, for the reasons I've already given.
Your reason from the original post was: "I know it's possible to use a
for, but it doesn't feel right to me."
It is not reasonable to demand everyone
On Fri, 11 May 2018 13:58:31 +0200
"Wojciech S. Czarnecki" wrote:
Errata: of course body is still over condition check in
for { body; if !(condition) {break} }
construct.
https://play.golang.org/p/yHFPIYIpcfp
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang
On Tue, 1 May 2018 04:11:03 -0700 (PDT)
Hugh Fisher wrote:
> Another observation from this novice Go programmer: I'm puzzled why
> there's no while statement.
Because 'for' keeps condition where it belongs (at top);
If you want `do..while` as in C, Go offers more readable construct
with naked f
I think the only real problem here is the lack of do {} while and
even this is not a big problem. I think we can happily live with the
solution pointed by Sokolov, which is the one I use when needed. But
looking at this thread what pops up is that the lacking of this construct
at the language
On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 4:25:34 AM UTC-4, rog wrote:
>
> FWIW, the thing I miss sometimes is the equivalent of C's:
>
> while((x = next()) != nil) {
> something()
> }
>
> In Go you need to do either:
>
> for x = next(); x != nil; x = next() {
> something()
yes I made a bunch of errors in my examples... no need for outer scope
declaration with initialiser in the initialiser clause (one or the other,
you know what I mean)
There is a reason why in Go an assignment statement does not also evaluate,
but I am not aware of it, and this excludes this fro
I am writing code in which I pondered exactly using this kind of thing, it
involves tree walking on a binary tree, but I decided to scrap this
approach because, although you can't see it so clearly in that C code, it's
executing a function every loop that probably doesn't need to be. your
next(
четверг, 3 мая 2018 г., 11:25:34 UTC+3 пользователь rog написал:
>
> FWIW, the thing I miss sometimes is the equivalent of C's:
>
> while((x = next()) != nil) {
> something()
> }
>
> In Go you need to do either:
>
> for x = next(); x != nil; x = next() {
> som
FWIW, the thing I miss sometimes is the equivalent of C's:
while((x = next()) != nil) {
something()
}
In Go you need to do either:
for x = next(); x != nil; x = next() {
something()
}
which duplicates the per-iteration expression, or:
for {
I just think that:
for { ... } condition()
would be a useful addition to the language because minimum one run of the
for block is a common need.
Or to avoid any confusion, create a new reserved word:
until condition() { ... }
The lack of explicit minimum one-run in my opinion runs counter to
Yeah, that's not `for {} else {}`. This is spelled
```
var done bool
for condition() {
done = true
body()
}
if !done {
outOfBody()
}
```
On Wed, 2018-05-02 at 22:45 -0700, Sokolov Yura wrote:
>
> for {
> Body()
> if !Condition() {
> break
>
i code that often and comfortably.
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 10:45 PM Sokolov Yura wrote:
>
> for {
> Body()
> if !Condition() {
> break
> }
> }
>
> It is thats simple, guys.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Grou
for {
Body()
if !Condition() {
break
}
}
It is thats simple, guys.
--
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 g
On weird proposals there's also the `for { } else { }` construct that
has been put forward before.
On Wed, 2018-05-02 at 21:06 +, Michael Jones wrote:
> Ok, weird proposal: Make the per-iteration update part of a for loop
> change
> from "assignment to assignment or boolean expression" to allo
but not this...
https://play.golang.org/p/cZnSNvi7dNU
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 3:33 PM roger peppe wrote:
> On 2 May 2018 at 22:06, Michael Jones wrote:
> > Ok, weird proposal: Make the per-iteration update part of a for loop
> change
> > from "assignment to assignment or boolean expression" to
On 2 May 2018 at 22:06, Michael Jones wrote:
> Ok, weird proposal: Make the per-iteration update part of a for loop change
> from "assignment to assignment or boolean expression" to allow:
>
> while COND do {...}:
>
> for i:=0; x[i]<4; {...}
>
>
> do {...} while COND:
>
> for i:= 0; ; x[i]<4 { ...
Ok, weird proposal: Make the per-iteration update part of a for loop change
from "assignment to assignment or boolean expression" to allow:
*while COND do {...}:*
for i:=0; x[i]<4; {...}
*do {...} while COND:*
for i:= 0; ; x[i]<4 { ...}
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 12:33 PM Louki Sumirniy <
louki.
It adds absolutely nothing, that's why it should not be accepted. It will
lead to a divergence in the way it's used as well. However I think maybe
run block once before first condition check would be a useful and powerful
addition. Maybe it shows my age that I even know what do-while
post-condi
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 2:48 AM, Hugh Fisher wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 10:45:30 PM UTC+10, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>>
>> A `while` statement would presumably be exactly identical to a `for`
>> statement with a single condition. So adding a `while` statement
>> would not add any powe
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:48 AM Hugh Fisher wrote:
> As for not adding any power, that's why I mentioned if-then-else and
> switch.
> Switch with boolean cases is the same as if then else. It's not an obscure
> side effect either, the Go Tour cheerfully explains how to use it instead
> of
> if-th
for { . }
is exactly a while loop. The c style for statement's second clause is exactly
this and in c you can do this clumsily with:
for (i=1; ; true ) { . }
Go assumes that a single boolean expression is the same without initial
statement and post block loop statement. If you want to be clev
On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 10:45:30 PM UTC+10, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>
> A `while` statement would presumably be exactly identical to a `for`
> statement with a single condition. So adding a `while` statement
> would not add any power to the language, and would add an additional
> keyword
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:34 AM Lutz Horn wrote:
> You can even write
> for true {
> }
>
> to get an infinite loop you will have to break from.
for {
}
works just as well: https://play.golang.org/p/aEkbUjLmf_T
--
-j
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro
> No, I meant a while { ... } loop
for foo > 1 {
}
is exactly what you are looking for. You can even write
for true {
}
to get an infinite loop you will have to break from.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from
On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 11:57:13 PM UTC+10, Michael Jones wrote:
>
> Maybe he meant "until" aka "do {...} while cond" -- this is a valuable and
> missing mechanism. The argument back in the day was that having just one
> looping construct was more friendly to tooling.
>
>
No, I meant a whil
On Wed, May 2, 2018, 1:56 AM Michael Jones wrote:
> Maybe he meant "until" aka "do {...} while cond" -- this is a valuable and
> missing mechanism. The argument back in the day was that having just one
> looping construct was more friendly to tooling.
>
Based on this...
> I know it's possible t
>
> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 7:36 AM Alisdair > wrote:
>
>> Isn't `for { ... if cond { break; } }` the same as `do {...} while cond`?
>> Whilst having the benefits of not adding new keywords and maintaining the
>> logic of the loop entirely within the block of the loop making it simpler
>> to u
Isn't `for { ... if cond { break; } }` the same as `do {...} while cond`?
Whilst having the benefits of not adding new keywords and maintaining the
logic of the loop entirely within the block of the loop making it simpler
to understand.
On Tue, 1 May 2018 at 14:56, Michael Jones wrote:
> Maybe h
Correct.
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 7:36 AM Alisdair
wrote:
> Isn't `for { ... if cond { break; } }` the same as `do {...} while cond`?
> Whilst having the benefits of not adding new keywords and maintaining the
> logic of the loop entirely within the block of the loop making it simpler
> to underst
Maybe he meant "until" aka "do {...} while cond" -- this is a valuable and
missing mechanism. The argument back in the day was that having just one
looping construct was more friendly to tooling.
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 5:45 AM Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 4:11 AM, Hugh Fisher
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 4:11 AM, Hugh Fisher wrote:
>
> Another observation from this novice Go programmer: I'm puzzled why
> there's no while statement.
>
> I know it's possible to use a for, but it doesn't feel right to me. I always
> think of for loops as for iterating over data structures. Orig
Another observation from this novice Go programmer: I'm puzzled why
there's no while statement.
I know it's possible to use a for, but it doesn't feel right to me. I always
think of for loops as for iterating over data structures. Originally just
arrays, but languages like Python and Objective-C
32 matches
Mail list logo
