It's not really, it is just syntactic sugar. I just happen to think that
this kind of loop is common enough to have dedicated syntax. Not
necessarily the syntax I used in my example (that has its issues), but
something similar.
Your example it is how I do it myself currently :)
On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 6:00:46 PM UTC-5, peterGo wrote:
>
> milo,
>
> How is your loop different from this?
>
> for {
> // <loop body actions>
> if condition {
> break
> }
> }
>
> Peter
>
> On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 5:00:41 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> I rather like Go's loops, they are simple and easy to remember, and the
>> problem so many languages have with dozens of different loop keywords is
>> neatly avoided. Too many loop types is simply a pain, but I think that one
>> more wouldn't hurt...
>>
>> Basically the following would be helpful in some cases without being too
>> "odd" compared to what is existing:
>>
>> do{
>> // <loop body actions>
>> }for condition
>>
>> Is this a good idea? Why or why not? Anyone else have a better idea for
>> the syntax? (depending on how you look at it either "do" or "for" is
>> redundant, but removing "do" would probably require too much lookahead)
>>
>
--
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 [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
