🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MAINE.90Mar4094233@altair.dfrf.nasa.gov> maine@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Richard Maine) writes:
>On 3 Mar 90 03:06:41 GMT, Clifton_RL@admdev.cut.oz said:
>Clifton> IMPLIED DO-LOOP STATEMENT
>Clifton> We could use the implied do-loop construction.  For example:
>Clifton> 	(((C(I,J)=A(I,K)*B(K,J) ,K=1,M) ,I=1,M) ,J=1,M)
>Clifton> This clear statement would replace the familiar clutter of....
>
>Its mostly just a matter of taste (which means others are sure to
>disagree), but I find the DO-ENDDO to be clearer than the implied
>DO construct you show.  Longer, true, but I wouldn't call it cluttered.
>Perhaps it's just because I'm used to it.
>...Certainly you COULD write such things in an implied DO
>notation, but I think they will be very hard to read....

I must agree with Richard.  It comes back to the old arguments about
maintainable code vs compact code, and there are many occasions where
a succession of simple statements is far more comprehensible, albeit
longer, than the compact form.  This is the case with the DO loops 
dicussed above, and also with the IF-ENDIF structure.  Of course, if
you really like compact code you can always write in APL....

Geoff Miller
ghm@cc.adfa.oz.au