2-part for

[Costin Chirvasuta]

Hello,

Sorry if this was already discussed, but I can't find it anywhere.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a 2-part for form such as:

for ch, err = b.ReadRune; err != nil {
// ...
}

I've encountered the need for something like this quite a few times.

[Jiří Zárevúcky]

On Thursday, 26 April 2012 16:29:56 UTC+2, Costin Chirvasuta wrote:

Wouldn't it be nice to have a 2-part for form such as:

for ch, err = b.ReadRune; err != nil {
    // ...
}

I've encountered the need for something like this quite a few times.

I'm afraid this would be too confusing. Think the following two statements: 

for ch, err = b.ReadRune; err != nil { 

    // ... 
} 

for ch, err = b.ReadRune; err != nil; { 

    // ... 
}

A single character difference, drastic change in semantics. Nope, that's not a good idea.

[Jiří Zárevúcky]

On Thursday, 26 April 2012 17:36:16 UTC+2, Jiří Zárevúcky wrote:

On Thursday, 26 April 2012 16:29:56 UTC+2, Costin Chirvasuta wrote:

Wouldn't it be nice to have a 2-part for form such as:

for ch, err = b.ReadRune; err != nil {
    // ...
}

I've encountered the need for something like this quite a few times.

I'm afraid this would be too confusing. Think the following two statements: 

On another though, I too have encountered cases where something like this would be quite comfortable.

Perhaps it's a valid reason why Go could have a separate while statement.