wkitt...@windstream.net wrote:
On 10/13/2015 04:32 AM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, wkitt...@windstream.net wrote:
On 10/12/2015 03:43 PM, Martin Frb wrote:
Actually the above does not represent what the actual feature
request is about
The "else" is to be executed, after the while (even if the while
looped ZERO
times).
But it is to be skipped if the while exited via break (and only then).
For that reason "else" or "otherwise" are badly chosen keywords.
Because they
imply a different function.
exactly my and others' points... "and" would be better but then one
might just
as easily use a goto to jump around that part if break was used to
get out of
the loop...
anyway, it seems that no matter what the discussion, it won't make it
into the
compiler... that according to another post from a compiler dev ;)
Maybe my remark was not clear.
I'm not against this *functionality*.
I merely pointed out that *the syntax using 'else'* is not going to
make it
because it breaks backwards compatibility.
ahhhh... my bad... sorry 'bout that... i've been thinking about this,
too... 'else' and 'otherwise' mean the same thing... what they seem to
be looking for is 'aswell'...
foo := 0;
while foo < 100 do
begin
inc(foo);
end;
aswell
begin
dec(foo);
end;
either 'aswell' or 'aswellas'... while foo is less than 100 increment
foo as well as decrement foo when it is no longer less than 100...
If somebody really has to do this wouldn't "also" be a better choice to
avoid (getting close to overloading "as"? :-/
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk
[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
