OpenEuphoria

Re: Changes to Euphoria

• Posted by Mike777 <anon4321 at ?mai?.com> May 29, 2008
• 645 views

ken mortenson wrote:
> 
> while (1)
>    ...
> end while
> 
> I would claim that quicker comprehension occurs with this construct...
> 
> Loop
>    ...
> End Loop
> 
> Both are infinite loops.  Yes, it's not much quicker to comprehend, we're
> not dolts after all, but after examining thousands of lines of code, by 
> 3am I betcha that it becomes a bit more significant.

Incorrect.  The lack, at the beginning, of the indicator as to finality means I
must open up a stack in my brain as I see Loop.  And I can't pull from that stack
until perhaps much later.  Bad idea.

> Now, how about getting out of the loop?  

> But for a minimalist the answer is right there, IF.  You need something
> like EXIT to be used with the IF, but IF eliminates the need for any 
> additional unneeded keywords because you can put the IF test anywhere in the
> loop; beginning, middle and end.  

Your beginning and my beginning are different.  I want it at **THE** beginning. 
Not on the next line, indented or not.  I want to comprehend as much of the logic
that is being proposed, as quickly as possible, without having to span additional
lines (sometimes pages and pages of lines) until I get to a test intended to
allow for exit.

Even if you *allow* such specification at the very beginning, it sounds like you
would also *allow* it many lines later.  All arguments that rail against GOTO
rail against separating the exit test from the definition.  I can do that now
with a while(1) loop.  I don't want to HAVE to do it for all loops.

> Exit tells you immediately that you are
> leaving the loop you are currently in.  

For my compiler (read: brain) to do anything "immediately" I must see the
conditional test.  If that doesn't appear until many lines of code later, I can't
do it *immediately*.

If this idea had merit, all loops would be while(1) loops, which we already
have, and are avoided unless necessary by virtually everybody.

> But it's not about me.  So please consider the merits regardless of the
> source.

I see no merit, no matter the source.

Mike