🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <224@tuck.nott-cs.UUCP> nott-cs!anw (Andy Walker) writes:
>In article <101@cstvax.UUCP> db@cstvax.UUCP (Dave Berry) writes:
>> An alternative would be to have a 'for' expression - the same as a 'for'
>> statement except that it returns the value of the iteration variable on
>> exit.

Not all "for" statements *have* an iteration variable.

>	The trouble with all such suggestions is that there are too many
>things that a loop *could* deliver, and for every application that would
>make use of one such thing, there are equally worthy applications for all
>the others.  Further, there is always a cogent objection.  For example,
>you could return:
>
>   a)	The value that the iteration variable would have on the next cycle
>	[ie, the value that caused termination] -- but this could easily
>	be > maxint.

If so, you've already got a problem (probably infinite loop).  Remember, a
"for" is just a glorified "while".

>...	Better to have nothing than to spread such confusion!

I ran into these same problems some years ago when designing a language with
statement-expression equivalence.  I concluded that a loop has a void value.

In C++, it's not so bad having statements which are not expressions, because
you can just make a one-statement inline function and use "return".

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ihnp4!bentley!kwh), The Walking Lint