loop could be used as syntax for Roger Peppe's loop:
loop if x = next(); x != nil {
...
}
I guess you could also call that for if, but that makes me think of
for if me, ok := i().(OscarMayerWeiner); ok {
for _, person := range everyone {
love[person] = me
}
}
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 3:56 PM <matthewju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> These threads are akin to bike shedding thus a waste of time.
>
>
> In storytelling relief is part of good tragedy.
>
> I consider the overloading of for to be a plus because for, while,
> do-while are just loops with conditions. Maybe ‘loop’ is a more Go-like
> keyword.
>
> loop i, e := range c {
>
> Matt
>
> On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 8:46:36 AM UTC-5, M P r a d e s wrote:
>>
>> Can anybody point me to a single discussion on golang-nuts that led to a
>> significant syntax change? These threads are akin to bike shedding thus a
>> waste of time.
>>
>> Adding while provide nothing of value in a language that supports basic
>> looping. And for those who compare if and switch arguing it is equivalent,
>> you can't do type switches with an if statement.
>>
>> This is discussion is going nowhere.
>>
> --
> 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.
