Concrete Proposal: while ... and while ...

[Phil Hunt]

In article <7hvvto$ifj$1 at news.tamu.edu>
           cwebster at math.tamu.edu "Corran Webster" writes:
> In article <927132579snz at vision25.demon.co.uk>,
> Phil Hunt <philh at vision25.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <7hsv80$g9j$1 at news.tamu.edu>
> >           cwebster at math.tamu.edu "Corran Webster" writes:
> >
> >If this is added to the language, it will make programs harder to read.
> >
> >With your notation the ``and while ...'' line goes at the same level of
> >indentation as the original ``while'' line; this makes it look as if it
> >is ending that block and starting another one.
> 
> This is part of the point - it _is_ starting a new block.  I don't see
> it as making things any harder to read than "if .. elif ... else" or
> even the existing "while ... else ..." constructions. 

True, but if is harder to read than:

   while 1:
      xxxx()
      if test: break
      yyyy()

> >Or better still, just use ``if not test: break''.
> 
> Which you still can under this proposal.

My understanding is that ``and while test:'' means exactly the same
as ``if not test: break''. So why add it? All it does is make the
syntax more complicated, and therefore harder to learn.
 
> >IMO allowing ``while:'', meaning ``while 1:'' is a reasonable shortcut.
> 
> I'd agree with you here, but to allow it by itself would have added
> another level of complexity to the patch.  But it's not so much the "1"
> in there which irks me so much as the whole convoluted construct.  I'd
> much rather have something cleaner available.

Alright then, how about a ``loop:'' or ``forever:'' construct instead
of ``while 1:''? (Of course, these use a new keyword).
 
-- 
Phil Hunt....philh at vision25.demon.co.uk