I have a preferred methtod for emulating do-while:
notdone:=true
for notdone {
<do something>
if <condition> {
notdone = false
}
}
I prefer to use a negative name because I don't see why I should use a
unary operator when I can just use the word NOT and not incur any runtime
cost.
or
for !<terminal condition that will evaluate true before> {
<do thing that might change terminal condition>
}
The for is so awesome that the only that is theoretically missing is a
do-while.
Also, another way to do this would be using labels. If you put a label
before the part beginning what you want to repeat, you can put a condition
at the end that jumps to the label for your repeat condition. I think the
label could even be Do:
But it would be pretty cool if a do-while was added, since it won't break
old code, but it will break using old versions prior to this addition. It
would look like this
do {
} while <condition>
I suppose. Someone posted about a macro processor that probably could do
something like this. I personally don't see the point because most of the
time I can find a way to use the second construct I showed earlier - a
condition that does not evaluate false until the inner block has executed
at least once.
On Tuesday, 1 May 2018 14:11:04 UTC+3, Hugh Fisher wrote:
>
>
> Another observation from this novice Go programmer: I'm puzzled why
> there's no while statement.
>
> I know it's possible to use a for, but it doesn't feel right to me. I
> always
> think of for loops as for iterating over data structures. Originally just
> arrays, but languages like Python and Objective-C have extended for
> loops to other collections as well. "Looping until some condition is met"
> for me is a different control structure and needs a different keyword.
>
> There'd be overlap with the for statement, but if-then-else and switch
> with boolean case overlap too.
>
> And since while has been a reserved keyword in a lot of programming
> languages for many decades, I would bet a reasonable amount of
> money that a while statement could be added to Go right now and not
> break anyone's production code.
>
> cheers,
> Hugh Fisher
>
>
--
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.
