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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: stopping a loop iteration without exiting it
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 16:21:31 +0100
Organization: Also freenews.netfront.net; news.tornevall.net;
 news.eternal-september.org
Message-ID: <p2o55r$b5g$1@dont-email.me>
References: <bc57c2d8-ed05-4e8b-b7db-440984976364@googlegroups.com>
 <81971548-23c9-4927-a6a8-6f0f1dba896b@googlegroups.com>
 <p2jhdl$da4$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk> <wccr2r6ttuh.fsf@TheWorld.com>
 <p2kufi$f1l$1@dont-email.me> <867esx70lw.fsf@gaheris.avalon.lan>
 <p2ntsm$pad$1@dont-email.me> <86373k74qh.fsf@gaheris.avalon.lan>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 15:21:31 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="f5d98908cdce36eccd1e824541905cc9";
	logging-data="11440"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+qsLsKo3NFbA+20aCU5QT7VP64uS5QSB4="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.5.0
In-Reply-To: <86373k74qh.fsf@gaheris.avalon.lan>
Content-Language: en-US
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FOYp8FqGSM2nmVYlXuhtmC37NT8=
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:49768
Date: 2018-01-05T16:21:31+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 01/05/2018 03:35 PM, Mart van de Wege wrote:
> 
> The idiom is in common use, even if it is not in a language to your
> liking, so your 'never seen a real-world situation' remark is simply not
> true.

I never said I've never seen a real-world situation in which such a construct is 
used. I said I've never seen one where it was needed.  That is still true.

> Creating an unnecessary extra block, making code less readable. And what
> of the situation where you want to test for more than one exceptional
> situation before handing over your input to the main body of the loop?
> You want nested ifs?

Code such that a single "if" will significantly impact the readability needs to 
be rethought anyway. If there are multiple tests, I am familiar with the "and" 
operator. If they need to be executed in a specific order, I am familiar with 
"and then". Nested ifs are unnecessary; I have no idea why you would think they 
would be.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Brave Sir Robin ran away."
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
59