Mensanator wrote:
On Oct 12, 3:36�am, greg <g...@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
Mensanator wrote:
while not done:
� � ...
� � if n==1: done = True
� � ...
Seems to me that 'while not done:' is no better than
'while True:', because in both cases you have to look
inside the loop to find out what the exit condition
is.
Using a more meaningful name for the flag can help,
but you can't teach someone that just by giving them
an overly simplified rules such as "never use
while True:". They'll probably just replace it with
'while not done:' and think they've improved things,
without ever really understanding the issue.
You're missing the point. It's not that you have to
look inside for the terminating condition. It's that
you don't need a break.
Nothing wrong with a having a break IMHO.
while not done:
seems very dangerous to me as you'd have to
del done
before writing the same construct again. That's the sort of thing that
leads to errors.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
