The rap against "while True:" loops
mensanator at aol.com
Mon Oct 12 20:32:27 CEST 2009
On Oct 12, 1:02�pm, John Reid <j.r... at mail.cryst.bbk.ac.uk> wrote:
> 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.
My opinion is that there is everything wrong with
having a break. I don't think I have ever used one,
I write code that doesn't depend on that crutch.
> 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.
Duh. I won't write silly code like that either.
If I need more than one loop structure then I'll
do something like
while not done_with_this
while not done_with_that
Besides, since I _always_ initialize the flag
before entering a loop, the flag can be reused
and doesn't have to be deleted (as long as the
loops aren't nested). And since I don't use goto,
there's no chance the initialization can be avoided.
The best way to avoid the pitfalls of spaghetti
code is to not write it in the first place.
More information about the Python-list