Isn't `for { ... if cond { break; } }` the same as `do {...} while cond`?
Whilst having the benefits of not adding new keywords and maintaining the
logic of the loop entirely within the block of the loop making it simpler
to understand.
On Tue, 1 May 2018 at 14:56, Michael Jones <michael.jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe he meant "until" aka "do {...} while cond" -- this is a valuable and
> missing mechanism. The argument back in the day was that having just one
> looping construct was more friendly to tooling.
>
> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 5:45 AM Ian Lance Taylor <i...@golang.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 4:11 AM, Hugh Fisher <hugo.fis...@gmail.com>
>> 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.
>>
>> A `while` statement would presumably be exactly identical to a `for`
>> statement with a single condition. So adding a `while` statement
>> would not add any power to the language, and would add an additional
>> keyword. All language choices are a cost benefit decision. In this
>> case the benefit is a looping construct that some people will find
>> clearer to read and write, and the cost is a new keyword that
>> everybody needs to learn, and that at this point in the language's
>> evolution will likely break some, even if not much, existing code. I
>> don't think the benefit is worth the cost.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
> --
> Michael T. Jones
> michael.jo...@gmail.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.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
