> > [BJörn Lindqvist] > > > >>I would like to have do-while's like this: > >> > >>do: > >> <body> > >> until <cond> > >> > >>But I'm sure that has problems too. > > [Raymond Hettinger] > > That looks nice to me.
[Nick Coghlan] > 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> Which is exactly like PEP 315 except there 'until' must be spelled 'while not' and the while is properly indented. (I'm still not sure whether BJörn *meant* the 'until' to be indented or whether he simply made a mistake; his proposal resembles a Pythonic version of Pascal's repeat-until, which would have an unindented until-clause.) > 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). Why are you so excited about having until indented? You didn't give any examples with multiple occurrences. A single occurrence works just fine unindented, as PEP 315 has already shown. The indented until sounds like unnecessary syntactic sugar for 'if X: break' -- not very Pythonic. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
