On 15/04/2017 14:27, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
bartc <b...@freeuk.com>:
while 1:
body
Why not say it like it is:
while True:
body
but it's more psychological; I don't want to use an idiom to denote an
endless loop, I want to be able to express it directly!
C's:
for (;;)
statement
I would call an idiom.
I don't like that either!
Python's
while True:
body
is about as straightforward as it gets.
In the syntax I normally use (based on Algol 68), the endless loop is:
do
body
end
(well, actually I use do body od, but that may have raised some eyebrows).
'do', in the original Algol 68 syntax, was part of its 'for' statement,
where you could leave out the parts you don't need. The full syntax is
something like:
for var := a to b by c while d do body od
If you leave out the first part you get a while loop. Leave out all
except 'to b do', you get a repeat-n-times loop. And so on.
Elegant. (I don't do it that way, I have discrete loop types, plus my
own variations. Devising syntax is so easy, the hard bit is knowing when
to stop...)
Python's byte-code does at least optimise
I don't understand why there's so much talk about CPython's bytecode on
this list. That should only be of interest to active CPython developers.
What proportion of Python implementations depend on executing byte-code?
--
Bartc
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
