in reply to Re: Re: do/redo or for(;;): what's Kosher?
in thread do/redo or for(;;): what's Kosher?

Just curious. Why would you prefer this:

{ # do stuff last if BREAK-CONDITION; redo; }

to this:

{ # do stuff redo if !BREAK-CONDITION; }

or even (just to be pedantic),

{ # do stuff redo unless BREAK-CONDITION; }


Replies are listed 'Best First'.
(tye)Re3: do/redo or for(;;): what's Kosher?
by tye (Sage) on Jan 05, 2002 at 05:38 UTC

    I'm pretty sure that the reason is:

    { # do loop stuff to be done at least once last if BREAK-CONDITION; # do middle loop stuff <<< This part was left out redo; }
    which I'd still use while(1) for. Plus it allows you to do:
    { # read next line last if NoMoreLines # extract item from line redo if NoItemInLine last if EndOfItemListFound # categorize item redo if WrongItemCategory # check for updates redo if NoUpdatesThisCategory; # check permissions last if NoUpdatesAllowed; redo if ThisUpdateNotAllowed; # do update redo if NotFatal; # handle fatal error # (note, no "redo" here so this part isn't really # part of the "loop", just stuff to do once unless # "last" gets triggered above.) } # done with items
    where it is very easy to throw in a new check or new code in. But, as I said elsewhere, I find that power to be too easy to abuse. YMMV.

            - tye (but my friends call me "Tye")

      Ah, in that context, I see where this approach could be useful.

      I think I agree with you, though, that the while (1) (with scattered nexts in place of redos) accomplishes the same thing in a more self-explanatory way.


      You can give a man a fish and feed him for a day ...
      Or, you can
      teach him to fish and feed him for a lifetime