[541] in Coldmud discussion meeting

Re: To-Do list..

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sun Nov 6 13:26:42 1994 )

From: frankc@netcom.com (Frank Crowell)
To: coldstuff@MIT.EDU
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 1994 10:26:08 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <199411042101.AA00504@crl4.crl.com> from "Alex Stewart" at Nov 4, 94 01:01:50 pm

> 
> Up for Discussion
> -----------------
> Do-while syntax
>   This is my earlier suggestion of adding an optional "do" component to the
>   existing "while" syntax, such that the syntax becomes:
>     [do <statement>] while (<expr>) <statement>
>   As far as I can tell, we never came to a real consensus as to whether this
>   would be a good thing for me to add or not, so I'm listing it here..
>   Basically, this would allow for test-at-end loops, and test-in-middle for
>   that matter, along the following lines:
>     do
>       x = x + 1;             // Do our processing first,
>     while (x < 3);           // and then test at the end of the loop
> 
>     do {
>       .call_this_method();   // do some prerequisite stuff
>       x = object.foo();
>     } while (x) {            // if !x, break out of the loop,
>       y = y + x;             // otherwise do something with it
>       .tell("yay!");
>     }                        // and loop back up to the "do" point
> 
>   etc.. while still allowing the previous syntax of:
>     while (foo) {
>       .do_something_with(foo);
>     }
> 
>   etc.
> 

Yes. The form:
	do { } while () { }
is actually a more complete form of:
	do { } while();
and
	while ( ) { }
		
-- 
[Frank Crowell  			 frankc@netcom.COM]
[Home page	ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/frankc/pages.html]