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

On 25.04.2025 10:29, Rosario19 wrote:

On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 07:46:21 +0200, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
 

Especially if you have backward 'goto's it's IMO worth to have
a second look on your iteration construct.

 
loops have always at last one backward 'goto'

No.

That's why loop _abstractions_ have been introduced in programming
languages, to *not need* _low-level_ loop representations appear in
high-level programming.

(You seem to be arguing on assembler level on von Neumann machines,
but that misses the point of a loop abstraction in loops constructs
as you find them in form of for, while, repeat, until, etc. in the
high-level languages. BTW, in your argumentation it would have been
more precise to have said that there's at least one 'JMP' *and* at
least one conditional jump, like 'JNZ', to implement loops on such
a low machine model level.)

Janis