Loop iterator - example.txt
Bruno Medeiros
brunodomedeirosATgmail at SPAM.com
Sat Apr 29 13:02:10 PDT 2006
Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> Here's an idea:
>
> There should be a way in D to allow the reconsideration of a for..loop test
> clause without executing the increment clause.
>
> Using the terminology:
> for (initialize-clause; conditional-clause; increment-clause)
>
> Example:
> int i;
> for (i=0; i<10; i++)
> {
> if (string.substr(i,1) == something)
> {
> i += some_other_function();
> retry;
> }
> else if (string.substr(i,1) == something_else)
> {
> i += some_other_function2();
> retry;
> }
> // Otherwise, simply execute the "i++" and re-test
> }
>
> I propose the name "retry" for the "retest without increment-clause" command, to
> be used in a manner similar syntax-wise to the way "break" is used today.
> "Retry" would simply bypass the increment-clause and proceed straight to the
> conditional-clause code section, thereby allowing subsequent passes through the
> for loop without the requisite and occasionally unnecessary auto-incrementation.
>
> It would just be a way to give for loops a little more natural utility without
> having to do some rather obtuse programming techniques, such as using goto's or
> enclosing the code in a while or do loop, etc.
>
> - Rick C. Hodgin
>
>
>
> int i;
> for (i=0; i<10; i++)
> {
> if (string.substr(i,1) == something)
> {
> i += some_other_function();
> retry;
> }
> else if (string.substr(i,1) == something_else)
> {
> i += some_other_function2();
> retry;
> }
> // Otherwise, simply execute the "i++" and re-test
> }
For the case where you don't have any continues, you can do the code
this way instead:
for (i=0; i<10; )
{
if (string.substr(i,1) == something)
{
i += some_other_function();
continue;
}
else if (string.substr(i,1) == something_else)
{
i += some_other_function2();
continue;
}
// ############ Execute the increment expression here: #######
i++;
}
The remaining case, where you want to use continues and retries in the
same for, well, I don't think it's a common enough case that makes it
worth the introduction of a new keyword just some trivial syntactic sugar.
In fact, the very idea seems like a very awkward idiom to me. I would
like to examine a real example, can someone post one?
--
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list