Loop iterator - example.txt

[Unknown W. Brackets]

I would probably do something more like (assuming there is no other code 
but the tests):

int i = 0;
while (i < 10)
{
     if (string[i] == something)
     {
         i += some_other_function();
         continue;
     }
     else if (string[i] == something_else)
     {
         i += some_other_function2();
         continue;
     }

     // Otherwise, simply execute the "i++" and re-test
     i++;
}

I mean, while is a keyword too, isn't it?  I really am unclear on how 
it's any more obtuse... perhaps you're just not as used to it?

Do you cut everything, even cheese and fruit, with a steak knife? 
Perhaps you do.  But do master chefs as well?  Or do they use the right 
knives for the right purposes?

Actually, I might do this depending on the number of tests:

int pos = 0;
while (pos < string.length)
{
     switch (string[pos])
     {
     case something:
         pos += some_other_function(string[pos .. string.length]);
         break;

     case something_else:
         pos += some_other_function2(string[pos .. string.length]);
         break;

     default:
         pos++;
     }
}

Which, to me, seems much more clear than any "retry" would.  In fact, 
"retry" would seem incredibly unclear to me.  That's just me.  I don't 
see the concept of "retrying" anywhere.

The above code looks somewhat similar to code I've used in an xml 
document parser and a simple abbreviated xpath expression evaluator.  I 
can't even remember the last time I've used/wanted anything like a "retry".

Clearly, just my opinion.

-[Unknown]


> 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
> }