You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Original bug ID: 1544 Reporter: administrator Status: closed Resolution: won't fix Priority: normal Severity: feature Category: ~DO NOT USE (was: OCaml general)
Bug description
Full_Name: Daniel M. Albro
Version: 3.0.6
OS: Linux and Windows
Submission from: vp191002.reshsg.uci.edu (128.195.191.2)
I am wondering if there is some way to improve the
imperative loop operations slightly, to give programmers
better control over areas of their code that have to
run fast... The following would be nice:
step values for for loops. Example:
for i = 0 to 9 by 2 do
Printf.printf "%d " i
done
0 2 4 6 8
break statements ("exit loop", or whatever). I realize that break can be
simulated by using reference variables to control while loops
and setting the variable such that the toplevel test will fail,
but this is not an appealing way to program. I also realize that
break can be simulated by exception throwing, but I've noticed this
is slow compared to the first simulation method.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Original bug ID: 1544
Reporter: administrator
Status: closed
Resolution: won't fix
Priority: normal
Severity: feature
Category: ~DO NOT USE (was: OCaml general)
Bug description
Full_Name: Daniel M. Albro
Version: 3.0.6
OS: Linux and Windows
Submission from: vp191002.reshsg.uci.edu (128.195.191.2)
I am wondering if there is some way to improve the
imperative loop operations slightly, to give programmers
better control over areas of their code that have to
run fast... The following would be nice:
step values for for loops. Example:
for i = 0 to 9 by 2 do
Printf.printf "%d " i
done
break statements ("exit loop", or whatever). I realize that break can be
simulated by using reference variables to control while loops
and setting the variable such that the toplevel test will fail,
but this is not an appealing way to program. I also realize that
break can be simulated by exception throwing, but I've noticed this
is slow compared to the first simulation method.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: