Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })

On 22/04/2025 00:12, Keith Thompson wrote:

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

On 21/04/2025 22:06, Waldek Hebisch wrote:

bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

>
t iteration goes over all elements in the hash table.

   BTW2: When looking at 'for' loop you are supposed to see pattern,
without need to track all steps.

>
That's one of the disadvantages of using the same, often
/inappropriate/ keyword for every kind of pattern.

 You think it's inappropriate.
 Would your objections go away if a different keyword were used?

I already said that I would have prefered if 'while' was used.
Then either 'for' wasn't used, or was used for the kind of for-loop that is common in other languages.

*You* find it much cleaner and simpler.  I don't.  What makes you right
and everyone else wrong?

This is an interesting point: too much stuff on one line is usually frowned upon: multiple statements, multiple variables being declared etc.
But when it's a for-loop, then apparently anything goes.

All three would be IMHO clearer if each of the three clauses were on a
separate line.  The fact that you can write a badly formatted C-style
for loop is not an argument against C-style for loops.

Complex loops are nearly always badly formatted and written on one line. Nobody cares. As you've demonstrated.