Op 16-04-17 om 19:07 schreef Terry Reedy: > On 4/16/2017 11:35 AM, Michael Torrie wrote: >> On 04/16/2017 07:57 AM, bartc wrote: >>> But people just don't want it. >>> >>> /That/ is what surprises me, when people reject things that to me are >>> no-brainers. > > Whereas to me, it is a no-brainer that we are better off *without* > multiple while/loop constructs. > >> I simply don't care about these missing loop constructs. > > I do ;-) I consider the current simplicity a feature. > > > Python works >> great for what I use it for, and apparently works well for many people. > > The great majority* of 'repetition with variation' is sequentially > processing items from a collection. Python does that nicely with 'for > item in collection: process(item)'. While-loops take care of > everthing else.
Not really, unless you count on the break statement. But if you count on that, you don't even need a while, you can start a for loop with a generator that never stops and use breaks. There was a time something like the following was seriously considered for introduction in the language. do part1 while condition: part2 which would be equivalent to the following: while True: part1 if not condition: break part2 But suddenly this was no longer considered. I still wish they had followed through. I think such a construct comes up often enough, to have such a loop construct. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list