From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: stopping a loop iteration without exiting it
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2018 22:52:43 +0100
Message-ID: <867esx70lw.fsf@gaheris.avalon.lan>
References: <bc57c2d8-ed05-4e8b-b7db-440984976364@googlegroups.com>
	<81971548-23c9-4927-a6a8-6f0f1dba896b@googlegroups.com>
	<p2jhdl$da4$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk> <wccr2r6ttuh.fsf@TheWorld.com>
	<p2kufi$f1l$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Trace: individual.net rByjdOafXfZXRUxHkvkMaA8/Es+icqAISALYKwmw5Bv64pNdC1
X-Orig-Path: gaheris.avalon.lan!not-for-mail
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lajj+0ilIz+NThmrzg2hxMEDOaY=
 sha1:TiHAaNNyE/JE3T3+A7Ibfrj8M5I=
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux)
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:49757
Date: 2018-01-04T22:52:43+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org> writes:

> On 01/04/2018 12:17 AM, Robert A Duff wrote:
>>
>> Jeff's suggestion (nested 'if' in the loop) is a good one when it works,
>> but it doesn't work when the "continue" is nested within further control
>> constructs.
>
> I have never seen a real-world situation in which a "continue" was
> needed.

It's a common idiom in Perl when looping over a stream of discrete items
(like lines in a file). A test at the top of the loop for cases where
processing is not necessary in the form of

  next if <condition>

(a popular one is in file processing, to skip comment lines:

  next if /^#/;

aka, skip this line if it starts with a # character indicating a
comment)

Since these are basically guard clauses, the idiom is clear to anyone
with more than a cursory knowledge of the language (and anyone
pretending to be a programmer, let alone a software engineer, should be
smart enough to recognise this as the loop equivalent of a guard clause
on a second look).

The resistance against adding a similar construct to Ada is puzzling to
me. It is clear, and more elegant than the more general 'goto' that is
the only way to do this in Ada. Adding a goto with a label at the top of
the loop is not clear until you seek out the label near the 'end loop'
statement; if that is out of sight it may well appear as an attempt to
break out of the loop.

Mart

-- 
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.