Remi Villatel wrote: > Hi there, > > There is always a "nice" way to do things in Python but this time I can't > find one. > > What I'm trying to achieve is a conditionnal loop of which the condition > test would be done at the end so the loop is executed at least once. It's > some way the opposite of "while". > > So far, all I got is: > > while True: > some(code) > if final_condition is True: > break > # > # > > What I don't find so "nice" is to have to build an infinite loop only to > break it.
FWIW, my own experience is that the "while True" idiom is actually safer and better than alternatives like do/while. I used to write do/while loops all the time, but I wound up with more than my fair share of unintentionally infinite loops. I put too much trust in the syntax: I expected that since I was using the cleaner construct, I didn't have to worry about infinite loops. Now, I think of "while True" not as an infinite loop, but rather as a sign reminding me to be wary of looping infinitely in a particular spot. I feel like this has resulted in a lot fewer infinite loops in my own code. Now I believe that any loop that can't be represented well with "for" or a conditional "while" has enough inherent complexity to justify a warning sign, and "while True" has bright yellow flashing lights all over it. Thus I'm quite in favor of the status quo. Shane -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
