The rap against "while True:" loops

[John Reid]

Mensanator wrote:
> On Oct 12, 3:36�am, greg <g... at cosc.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>> Mensanator wrote:
>>> while not done:
>>> � � ...
>>> � � if n==1: done = True
>>> � � ...
>> Seems to me that 'while not done:' is no better than
>> 'while True:', because in both cases you have to look
>> inside the loop to find out what the exit condition
>> is.
>>
>> Using a more meaningful name for the flag can help,
>> but you can't teach someone that just by giving them
>> an overly simplified rules such as "never use
>> while True:". They'll probably just replace it with
>> 'while not done:' and think they've improved things,
>> without ever really understanding the issue.
> 
> You're missing the point. It's not that you have to
> look inside for the terminating condition. It's that
> you don't need a break.

Nothing wrong with a having a break IMHO.

while not done:

seems very dangerous to me as you'd have to

del done

before writing the same construct again. That's the sort of thing that 
leads to errors.