I don't understand why you are saying this after how many times so many
people have pointed out that
while Condition() { ... }
is expressed as
for Condition() { ... }
The for statement with a single clause IS a while loop. You can make it
explicit by putting semicolons on each side of the
On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 1:20:16 AM UTC+10, matthe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> It's certainly diverged from my original post, which is why I'm staying
>> quiet.
>
>
> I was hoping to get back on track after you sent this so you’d want to
> participate.
>
I still think a while { ... } loop would
That would be funny to me.
I have been guilty of being disrespectful to people in person about their C
code choices, but I thought it was justified because I was hoping to get
good technical reasons in response and didn’t intend anything personally
targeted. ‘Crusade’ was a word I’d use for wha
I bet Rob wishes he'd done that after the code reviewer's objections.
On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 8:20 AM wrote:
> It's certainly diverged from my original post, which is why I'm staying
>> quiet.
>
>
> I was hoping to get back on track after you sent this so you’d want to
> participate.
>
> goto is
>
> It's certainly diverged from my original post, which is why I'm staying
> quiet.
I was hoping to get back on track after you sent this so you’d want to
participate.
goto is another way to do loops in Go: https://play.golang.org/p/0chmb5DeOym
Matt
On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 4:26:44 PM
while dirty() {
wash()
}
until !dirty() {
wash()
}
Normal English semantics hold until as a negation of while.
On Fri, 2018-05-11 at 01:17 -0700, Louki Sumirniy wrote:
> Until condition is true is not a negation or negative.
--
You received this message because you are subscrib
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 12:28 PM Louki Sumirniy <
louki.sumirniy.stal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I strongly dispute whether forcing a single statement in a block to be on
a new line benefits readability.
Fun fact: The major point of gofmt is to bring endless and pointless code
formatting disputes to
I strongly dispute whether forcing a single statement in a block to be on a
new line benefits readability. Sure, if the statement makes the line over
80 characters, but otherwise, the contrary. More work for the index finger
and more time to lose context while reading the code.
I would say that
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 10:22 AM Louki Sumirniy <
louki.sumirniy.stal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On that note, I think that most of the ways that gofmt changes things is
nice but I think I'm disabling its use from now on because more than a few
times I have seen my line count expanded massively
> when
On that note, I think that most of the ways that gofmt changes things is
nice but I think I'm disabling its use from now on because more than a few
times I have seen my line count expanded massively when most of the
statement blocks were just one statement. I appreciate the simplification
it ma
Until condition is true is not a negation or negative. But placing it
before the block implies pretesting as well. But adding a post-condition to
the block structure is a big change to the grammar tree structure as well,
just for one case, and really run-once before testing is not the most
comm
Until implies a negation. The presence of unless in perl is a horror
resulting from the same semantics - I'm sure it seemed like a good idea
at the time.
On Thu, 2018-05-10 at 23:25 -0700, Louki Sumirniy wrote:
> I think better to use the context of the english language for a
> pre-condition chec
I think better to use the context of the english language for a
pre-condition checked after:
until Condition() { ... }
Or maybe just exactly mimics for, but does not test until after one run of
the enclosed block:
until Init(); Condition(); PostAssignment() { ... }
On Friday, 11 May 2018 01:
On Thu, 10 May 2018 15:02:39 - Michael Jones
wrote:
>
> Maybe the central issue here has been lost because of the confusion between
> English words and the keywords of various languages. Let's be explicit: *a
> controlled looping construct may test the control condition before or after
> the
Interesting. I've never had that experience in the past 15ish years
doing POSIXish systems stuff. I've always found it the more natural
expression for handling EINTR from syscalls like read/write. I've also
never seen anyone seriously discourage its use in ##c on freenode over
the same-ish timefram
*always as in, from learn on 6th edition at BTL in 1977.
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:29 PM Michael Jones
wrote:
> So sorry to learn of your mistreatment. I've never been struggled in an
> anti-do-while cultural revolution, though I can imagine the lasting
> emotional harm.
>
> I always* thought th
So sorry to learn of your mistreatment. I've never been struggled in an
anti-do-while cultural revolution, though I can imagine the lasting
emotional harm.
I always* thought that C's "do {stuff} while (cond);" was a victim of
syntax. The cond is far away and hidden from the do. An idea from the Go
There is a widespread dislike of do-while in C. Pretty much every time I've
wanted it, my code reviewer made me take it out. I agree it has its place
but it's one of those style things that social pressures seem to force. I
would not be the one to try to argue for its return; I couldn't handle the
Maybe the central issue here has been lost because of the confusion between
English words and the keywords of various languages. Let's be explicit: *a
controlled looping construct may test the control condition before or after
the iterated body of code. Go's 'for' tests before and and Go does not
p
The lack of citations makes the content untrustworthy to me, but this
English Wikipedia article on loops claims some history starting with the do
loop in FORTRAN (1957): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_loop
This article says the three part for loop was introduced in C/C++ (1972),
and containe
On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 4:59:35 PM UTC-6, matthe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I’m not sure if C has been directly mentioned. I started with C so
> iteration is just a nice shortcut to me. Assuming you’ve always had
> collection iteration available an explanation is the for loop can make the
> us
I was serious this time and the first time (years ago now) that this came
up. My motivation was not really core to the Go manifesto; in addition to
all the good Go usage model things, I also like using it to teach or show
algorithms. In this use I wanted to be able to naturally present both:
while
I’m not sure if C has been directly mentioned. I started with C so
iteration is just a nice shortcut to me. Assuming you’ve always had
collection iteration available an explanation is the for loop can make the
useful pattern of indexing into an array up to the length of the array
using an index
On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 4:20:41 AM UTC+10, Marc wrote:
>
> I'm still not convinced this topic is not some kind of elaborate joke.
>
It's certainly diverged from my original post, which is why I'm staying
quiet.
cheers,
Hugh Fisher
--
You received this message because you are subscribe
I'm still not convinced this topic is not some kind of elaborate joke.
On Tuesday, May 1, 2018 at 1:11:04 PM UTC+2, Hugh Fisher 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
The original suggestion (using while instead of for) may be the first time
someone has complained that Go is not verbose enough.
-rob
--
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 i
On Thu, 03 May 2018 20:46:59 -0700 Lucio wrote:
>
> I never felt the need to join an APL fan club, but you sure tempt me, Bakul!
>
> Is there one, or do we need to start one? What would be the minimal entry
> qualification?
There are some mailing lists and websites that you can check
out (if y
urgh. Wile I think the C shorthand if/then notation is kinda cool, I really
think you can easily go too far with programming where all the time you
save on keystrokes you pay by using the shift key a lot more and having to
really carefully read. Maybe after a time it would be cool but I prefer m
J is the beautiful result of the APL road.
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 8:47 PM Lucio wrote:
> I never felt the need to join an APL fan club, but you sure tempt me,
> Bakul!
>
> Is there one, or do we need to start one? What would be the minimal entry
> qualification?
>
> APL is the only language I le
I never felt the need to join an APL fan club, but you sure tempt me, Bakul!
Is there one, or do we need to start one? What would be the minimal entry
qualification?
APL is the only language I learnt that to this day feels like it shifted my
mindset much more than one notch. I didn't pay much a
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 T
I agree with the first part, but not the second - 'for' is far more 'Go
like' in terms of clarity and meaning
Compare the first few meanings of 'loop':
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/loop?s=t
with 'for': http://www.dictionary.com/browse/for?s=t
Although I think 'desirous' would be an excelle
>
> 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
O
Perhaps you mean “the functional side has done away with loops” or “made do
with recursion”?
I still remember that as a newbie I was confused about while loops but not
recursion. I thought that the while was being *continuously*
monitored during the entire execution of the while and not just
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 3:46 PM wrote:
> And for those who compare if and switch arguing it is equivalent, you
> can't do type switches with an if statement.
>
Yes, you can
if r, ok := r.(*bytes.Buffer); ok {
// Use r as a *bytes.Buffer
} else if r, ok := r.(*os.File); ok {
// Use r as a
> do { ... } while is the only construct I some times miss, but then
> again, it occurs fairly rarely in my code, so for now I'm rather happy to
> just rewrite it in another style.
When I programmed in C, I found it pretty rare to use do...while.
These days I think of it more as a special case
On 3 May 2018 at 14:46, 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.
I can think of a couple, although I haven't got the time to delve for links.
The map key deletion
The reason is simply that good syntax is a really hard problem which
incorporates both tech and people.
In principle, you can get away with very few things in a language before it
is turing complete. It is enough to have eg 'WHILE do ' where
stmts can form a block of statements. Or just have recu
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
On Wed, 02 May 2018 03:04:38 -0700 Lucio wrote:
>
> E.J. Dijkstra in "A Discipline of Programming" proposed multicase "do" and
> "if" constructs; the former looping, the latter single-shot. The "guards"
> he proposed were strictly boolean expressions determining which, if any, of
> the guarded
It could be effectively added in Go by allowing an optional condition after
break statements.
--
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+unsubsc
E.J. Dijkstra in "A Discipline of Programming" proposed multicase "do" and
"if" constructs; the former looping, the latter single-shot. The "guards"
he proposed were strictly boolean expressions determining which, if any, of
the guarded statements would be executed. If no guard proved true, the
The 'do' in this could be a 'for' if for allowed an optional 'while' after
the close brace.
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 9:08 PM Louki Sumirniy <
louki.sumirniy.stal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a preferred methtod for emulating do-while:
>
> notdone:=true
> for notdone {
>
> if {
> notdone
I have a preferred methtod for emulating do-while:
notdone:=true
for notdone {
if {
notdone = false
}
}
I prefer to use a negative name because I don't see why I should use a
unary operator when I can just use the word NOT and not incur any runtime
cost.
or
for ! {
}
The for i
44 matches
Mail list logo
