Re: [go-nuts] Syntactic Sugar Idea for Go 2.0: until/unless, and postfix conditionals
Indeed!
Go has while loops :)
for {
// do some stuff
if !condition { break }
}
instead of
{
// do some stuff
} while condition
They are identical functionally, so why bother with the second syntax? You
then get into arguments about which one to use.
-- Marcin
On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 11:31 AM 'Amnon Cohen' via golang-nuts <
golang-nuts@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> Languages often have a whole variety of loop constructs.
> C has for loops as well us while loops.
> Go adopts the principle from the Zen of python:
>
> *There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it. *It
> takes a minimalist approach - there is only one looping construct: the for
> loop.
>
> This is an excellent decision, IMO.
>
>
>>>
> Red Sift is the power behind OnDMARC and OnINBOX.
>
> You can find us at 21A Noel Street, 4th Floor, London, W1F 8GR.
>
>
> Red Sift is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered
> number: 09240956. Registered office: Kemp House, 152 City Road, London,
> EC1V 2NX.
>
> --
> 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 golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/8d492b26-4784-448f-9714-79c43bc93527n%40googlegroups.com
>
> .
>
--
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 golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CA%2Bv29Lv6k_w7M%3DciU%2BUoPSUYGaP_rekszdaHrLN_zNcaoihebg%40mail.gmail.com.
Re: [go-nuts] Syntactic Sugar Idea for Go 2.0: until/unless, and postfix conditionals
Languages often have a whole variety of loop constructs. C has for loops as well us while loops. Go adopts the principle from the Zen of python: *There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it. *It takes a minimalist approach - there is only one looping construct: the for loop. This is an excellent decision, IMO. >> -- Red Sift is the power behind OnDMARC and OnINBOX. You can find us at 21A Noel Street, 4th Floor, London, W1F 8GR. Red Sift is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 09240956. Registered office: Kemp House, 152 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX. -- 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 golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/8d492b26-4784-448f-9714-79c43bc93527n%40googlegroups.com.
Re: [go-nuts] Syntactic Sugar Idea for Go 2.0: until/unless, and postfix conditionals
On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 6:09 AM 'Dan Kortschak' via golang-nuts wrote: > My first professional programming language was Perl, decades later I > still wake up in a sweat thinking about post-fix conditionals and the > 'unless' conditional. I don't miss MUMPS post conditional either. -- 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 golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAA40n-Wte4mDU3YJ010nLzV3KtsTBjx%3D2P2-N7gaFaVmTL1p-g%40mail.gmail.com.
Re: [go-nuts] Syntactic Sugar Idea for Go 2.0: until/unless, and postfix conditionals
Thanks, Dan. Those seem like well-reasoned points. On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 9:33 PM 'Dan Kortschak' via golang-nuts < golang-nuts@googlegroups.com> wrote: > There are two parts. The worse part is the negative conditional > (unless), which has the problem that humans are bad at negations; > nearly always when there is a complex condition with an "unless", it > needs to be mentally refactored into an "if !" (when working through > other people's bugs, I invariably — at least temporarily — inverted the > condition and replaced the "unless" with an "if"). > > The post-fix conditional syntax says a whole heap of stuff that's going > to happen, and only when you get to the end of the line do you see that > it might not. > > Putting a single positively oriented syntax, at the front of > conditional blocks greatly simplifies the thinking about what is going > to happen in a section of code. > > On Mon, 2020-11-02 at 21:22 -0800, Tyler Compton wrote: > > I don't think I'm personally sold on this proposal either, but I'm > > curious what bad experiences you've had with post-fix conditionals. I > > haven't personally used a language with post-fix conditionals and it > > sounds like that might be to my benefit :) > > > > -- > 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 golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/81c874ec04cea0e9e8f73d251cccf01cfa9b9e19.camel%40kortschak.io > . > -- 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 golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAA%3DXfu1BdVrmx9kjkxPH%3DrTvVHgFyiYN_RMH1uM7YXoj2zyXHg%40mail.gmail.com.
Re: [go-nuts] Syntactic Sugar Idea for Go 2.0: until/unless, and postfix conditionals
There are two parts. The worse part is the negative conditional (unless), which has the problem that humans are bad at negations; nearly always when there is a complex condition with an "unless", it needs to be mentally refactored into an "if !" (when working through other people's bugs, I invariably — at least temporarily — inverted the condition and replaced the "unless" with an "if"). The post-fix conditional syntax says a whole heap of stuff that's going to happen, and only when you get to the end of the line do you see that it might not. Putting a single positively oriented syntax, at the front of conditional blocks greatly simplifies the thinking about what is going to happen in a section of code. On Mon, 2020-11-02 at 21:22 -0800, Tyler Compton wrote: > I don't think I'm personally sold on this proposal either, but I'm > curious what bad experiences you've had with post-fix conditionals. I > haven't personally used a language with post-fix conditionals and it > sounds like that might be to my benefit :) -- 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 golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/81c874ec04cea0e9e8f73d251cccf01cfa9b9e19.camel%40kortschak.io.
Re: [go-nuts] Syntactic Sugar Idea for Go 2.0: until/unless, and postfix conditionals
I don't think I'm personally sold on this proposal either, but I'm curious
what bad experiences you've had with post-fix conditionals. I haven't
personally used a language with post-fix conditionals and it sounds like
that might be to my benefit :)
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 9:09 PM 'Dan Kortschak' via golang-nuts <
golang-nuts@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> My first professional programming language was Perl, decades later I
> still wake up in a sweat thinking about post-fix conditionals and the
> 'unless' conditional.
>
> Please no.
>
> On Mon, 2020-11-02 at 14:26 -0800, Jeffrey Paul wrote:
> > Hello Gophers,
> >
> > There's two tiny pieces of syntactic sugar I really miss from a few
> > other languages that I think would add a nice bit of ergonomics and
> > convenience to Go (which I now play as my main) without increasing
> > any magic or spooky action at a distance.
> >
> > They are:
> >
> > - postfix conditionals
> >
> > and
> >
> > - until (while!) and unless (if!) (which probably also means adding
> > `while`)
> >
> > This allows for lovely expressions such as the following examples:
> >
> >i.NotifySomeone() if j.HasExpiredItems()
> >
> >time.Sleep(1 * time.Second) until thing.IsReady()
> >
> >b.ReportActivity(e) unless u.HasOptedOut()
> >
> >q.ProcessItem() while server.Active()
> >
> >until(time.Now().After(notAfter)) {
> > // do something while we still can
> >}
> >
> >p.processEvents() until p.shutdownRequested
> >
> > and, my favorite:
> >
> >panic("can't even") if err != nil
> >
> > There are, of course, various ways of doing some of this sort of
> > synchronization stuff in these contrived examples using
> > channels/goroutines/timers, but this sort of syntax is quite useful
> > for simple straight-line synchronous code, and, in my view, increases
> > readability without sacrificing anything.
> >
> > I know that `while` isn't a distinct thing in Go, and for
> > consistency's sake, this might necessitate adding such a construct as
> > well (if you can use it as a postfix conditional, you should probably
> > be able to use it as `while(cond) {}` too).
> >
> > What do you think? I really miss this syntax from other
> > languages. It's been in Perl and Ruby for ages, and, more recently,
> > CoffeeScript had it for a moment, but it didn't make it over into ES
> > with the other notable features from it. I think it's a lovely
> > convenience without changing the operation of the language itself.
> >
> > Best,
> > -sneak
> >
>
>
> --
> 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 golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/99896e4fcd832c0003bb5e23ffd1a72837ea49bd.camel%40kortschak.io
> .
>
--
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 golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAA%3DXfu1RfkK%2B-4kKXUYSYiOve1Kq57ZNxAnOdGh7jbuDdUsKYA%40mail.gmail.com.
Re: [go-nuts] Syntactic Sugar Idea for Go 2.0: until/unless, and postfix conditionals
My first professional programming language was Perl, decades later I
still wake up in a sweat thinking about post-fix conditionals and the
'unless' conditional.
Please no.
On Mon, 2020-11-02 at 14:26 -0800, Jeffrey Paul wrote:
> Hello Gophers,
>
> There's two tiny pieces of syntactic sugar I really miss from a few
> other languages that I think would add a nice bit of ergonomics and
> convenience to Go (which I now play as my main) without increasing
> any magic or spooky action at a distance.
>
> They are:
>
> - postfix conditionals
>
> and
>
> - until (while!) and unless (if!) (which probably also means adding
> `while`)
>
> This allows for lovely expressions such as the following examples:
>
>i.NotifySomeone() if j.HasExpiredItems()
>
>time.Sleep(1 * time.Second) until thing.IsReady()
>
>b.ReportActivity(e) unless u.HasOptedOut()
>
>q.ProcessItem() while server.Active()
>
>until(time.Now().After(notAfter)) {
> // do something while we still can
>}
>
>p.processEvents() until p.shutdownRequested
>
> and, my favorite:
>
>panic("can't even") if err != nil
>
> There are, of course, various ways of doing some of this sort of
> synchronization stuff in these contrived examples using
> channels/goroutines/timers, but this sort of syntax is quite useful
> for simple straight-line synchronous code, and, in my view, increases
> readability without sacrificing anything.
>
> I know that `while` isn't a distinct thing in Go, and for
> consistency's sake, this might necessitate adding such a construct as
> well (if you can use it as a postfix conditional, you should probably
> be able to use it as `while(cond) {}` too).
>
> What do you think? I really miss this syntax from other
> languages. It's been in Perl and Ruby for ages, and, more recently,
> CoffeeScript had it for a moment, but it didn't make it over into ES
> with the other notable features from it. I think it's a lovely
> convenience without changing the operation of the language itself.
>
> Best,
> -sneak
>
--
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 golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/99896e4fcd832c0003bb5e23ffd1a72837ea49bd.camel%40kortschak.io.
[go-nuts] Syntactic Sugar Idea for Go 2.0: until/unless, and postfix conditionals
Hello Gophers,
There's two tiny pieces of syntactic sugar I really miss from a few other
languages that I think would add a nice bit of ergonomics and convenience to Go
(which I now play as my main) without increasing any magic or spooky action at
a distance.
They are:
- postfix conditionals
and
- until (while!) and unless (if!) (which probably also means adding `while`)
This allows for lovely expressions such as the following examples:
i.NotifySomeone() if j.HasExpiredItems()
time.Sleep(1 * time.Second) until thing.IsReady()
b.ReportActivity(e) unless u.HasOptedOut()
q.ProcessItem() while server.Active()
until(time.Now().After(notAfter)) {
// do something while we still can
}
p.processEvents() until p.shutdownRequested
and, my favorite:
panic("can't even") if err != nil
There are, of course, various ways of doing some of this sort of
synchronization stuff in these contrived examples using
channels/goroutines/timers, but this sort of syntax is quite useful for simple
straight-line synchronous code, and, in my view, increases readability without
sacrificing anything.
I know that `while` isn't a distinct thing in Go, and for consistency's sake,
this might necessitate adding such a construct as well (if you can use it as a
postfix conditional, you should probably be able to use it as `while(cond) {}`
too).
What do you think? I really miss this syntax from other languages. It's been
in Perl and Ruby for ages, and, more recently, CoffeeScript had it for a
moment, but it didn't make it over into ES with the other notable features from
it. I think it's a lovely convenience without changing the operation of the
language itself.
Best,
-sneak
--
Jeffrey Paul - sneak@sneak.berlin
+1 312 361 0355 (voice, sms, Signal)
5539 AD00 DE4C 42F3 AFE1 1575 0524 43F4 DF2A 55C2
--
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 golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/D50EAFC9-4662-429B-AF4E-9C0612F86D66%40sneak.berlin.
