Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> [BJörn Lindqvist]
>
>>I would like to have do-while's like this:
>>
>>do:
>> <body>
>> until <cond>
>>
>>But I'm sure that has problems too.
>
>
> That looks nice to me.
And this could easily be extended to allow code both before and after
the 'until', giving a fully general loop:
do:
<body-1-or-more-times>
until <cond>
<body-0-or-more-times>
else:
<on-natural-loop-exit>
In fact, this would simply be giving "looks like executable
pseudocode" syntactic sugar for the current 'do-until' workarounds:
while 1:
<body-1-or-more-times>
if <cond>:
<on-natural-loop-exit>
break
<body-0-or-more-times>
And:
_exit = False:
while not _exit:
<body-1-or-more-times>
_exit = <cond>
<body-0-or-more-times>
else:
<on-natural-loop-exit>
The 'until' is less hidden than the 'yield' that turns a function into
a generator, and its presence is obviously signalled by the preceding
'do'. Its also less hidden than the 'if'/'break' construct in the
infinite loop workaround, and about as hidden as the exit flag in the
other style of workaround (although the 'until' can be more easily
picked out by a syntax highlighter).
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://boredomandlaziness.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
