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!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: stopping a loop iteration without exiting it Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 10:42:29 +0100 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: <81971548-23c9-4927-a6a8-6f0f1dba896b@googlegroups.com> <5879f25e-c825-4c84-a219-293d1508b33d@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: MyFhHs417jM9AgzRpXn7yg.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Content-Language: en-US Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:49882 Date: 2018-01-12T10:42:29+01:00 List-Id: On 12/01/2018 10:22, G. B. wrote: > Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >> On 11/01/2018 21:54, G. B. wrote: >>> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >>> >>>>>> I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> L: >>>>> [for|while...] loop >>>>> ... >>>>> goto L; >>>>> ... >>>>> end loop L; > >>> loop is intended for the opposite, for when it’s not over yet. >>> For when it’s done again. “exit” cannot mean that, but the >>> hypothesized goto can. >> >> 1. "exit" can: >> >> exit when ; >> >> When condition evaluates false the loop continues. > > Well, no, the loop’s body continues. Doing so, it doesn’t > trigger another iteration, unlike “goto Continue”, or “goto L”. > It doesn’t drive. goto Continue triggers nothing, no more than exit when False at the loop end or any last loop statement. loop ... exit when False; end loop; >> P.S. Take if + a subroutine call. That gives recursion. Then following >> your flawed logic either if or loop is bad. > > Indeed this is a functionist’s main tenet. > But then, if CALL and COND do not suffice, i.e., if they need > an additional goto-like evaluation driver, then the functional > language is broken. Whatever, any non-minimal language is broken, who cares? -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de