4 ms·
Of course, but wouldn't that effectively defeat the purpose of removing BREAK/EXIT in the first place? With something like: WHILE ~(lastIteration) & ~(Found(
by ainar-g 7y ago
Of course, but wouldn't that effectively defeat the purpose of removing
BREAK/EXIT in the first place? With something like:
WHILE ~(lastIteration) & ~(Found(haystackPart, Needle)) DO
(* Advance the haystackPart. *)
END;
I can at least say that after the loop if lastIteration is true, then
the needle wasn't found in the haystack. While something like
WHILE ~(found) DO
(* Stuff. *)
END;
Conveys next to no information. To say nothing about the fact that the
body of the loop will probably be full of:
IF ~found THEN
(* Stuff. *)
END
- microtherion 7y ago> Of course, but wouldn't that effectively defeat the purpose of removing BREAK/EXIT in the first place? Personally, I do like having BREAK/EXIT, but in the eyes of structured programming purists, a loop with an explicit conditional still has a single entrance and single exit, while BREAK/EXIT statements destroy this property.