I miss loop

[cj]

When I'm inside a do while loop sometimes it's necessary to jump out of
the loop using exit do. I'm also used to being able to jump back and
begin the loop again. Not sure which language my memories are of but I
think I just said loop somewhere inside the loop and it immediately
jumped back to the start of the loop and began again. I can't seem to
do that in .net. I this functionality available?

[cj]

Yes, that'll also work.

Sebastian wrote:

I think you may have misunderstood the suggestion for using goto. Make
the goto go to the end of the loop, not the beginning, and you get
exactly the functionality of a continue statement, no messy inner loop.

Ex:
do
.
if something goto LoopContinue
.
.
.
if something goto LoopContinue
.
if something goto LoopContinue
.

LoopContinue:
while continue
cj wrote:

I thought about that this AM but after all the thought I have a double
do loop.

do
do
.
if something exit do
.
.
.
if something exit do
.
if something exit do
.
while innerLoop
while continue

Not beautiful but it was time to make a decision and move on.
Couldn't bring myself to use goto.

Scott M. wrote:

How about making the loop in its own procedure that can take the
appropriate arguments you'll need to use to determine if the loop "is
going well and should continue"?

You can still exit from the loop (or from the sub if the loop is in
one) if you need to and you'd be able to re-call the loop/procedure
and pass it what it needs to begin again.

"cj" <[e-mail] am> wrote in message
news:ex******** ******@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...
When I'm inside a do while loop sometimes it's necessary to jump out
of the loop using exit do. I'm also used to being able to jump back
and begin the loop again. Not sure which language my memories are
of but I think I just said loop somewhere inside the loop and it
immediately jumped back to the start of the loop and began again. I
can't seem to do that in .net. I this functionality available?

[Tim Ferguson]

cj <[e-mail] am> wrote in news:et******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl:

Strangely next to
the non existent loop/continue statement goto would seem to create the
most readable and compact code.

Yebbut, Nobbut, Yebbut, Nobbut Yeah, you see... it's all about how far the
Goto GetOutOfHereNow is from the :GetOutOfHereNo w. In many implementations
they end up a long way away, and it's the code-maintainer that comes along
later and doesn't spot it.

For my money, structured programming is all about putting code into little
self-contained boxes, and any path that suddenly arrives at another point
with several different possibilities for variables that have been
initialised or not, files that have been opened or closed or not, etc etc
is asking for trouble. YMMV of course.

All the best
Tim F

[cj]

Very true. I'd add that not only is it bad practice to have a GoTo too
far from the label, it is just as bad to have too many lines of code
within an if, loop, do or whatever statement. If the top and bottom of
the code are close enough to be enclosed in a do loop the goto wouldn't
be a problem.

Also lets not forget what others have pointed out as well. Proper
naming is critical in anything. GoTo GetOutOfhere Now wouldn't be as
nice as GoTo BottomOfContinu eLoop assuming I'm using Do, While Continue
as the loop. Heck for that matter Continue is a bad choice of names in
most situations. It'd be better to use Do, While GetNewShippingR ecords
or something. Except that Continue is easily readable and
understandable in this specific app.

I'd further mention, and it's a pet peeve of mine, that I've seen these
little self contained boxes used to the point that they make code
unreadable. Some folks, and I'm not insinuating your one of them, use
them to such a point that he main code has nothing in it but calls and
then you find all it does is call others. Your jumping all over the
place to see what the next subroutine does and it becomes its own form
of spaghetti code. If you don't have to call a routine but from one
place you might not need to put it in a routine. Might, I said.
Sometimes it's good of course, like to remove a huge section of distinct
code to keep routines short enough to read.
Tim Ferguson wrote:

cj <[e-mail] am> wrote in news:et******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl:

Strangely next to
the non existent loop/continue statement goto would seem to create the
most readable and compact code.

Yebbut, Nobbut, Yebbut, Nobbut Yeah, you see... it's all about how far the
Goto GetOutOfHereNow is from the :GetOutOfHereNo w. In many implementations
they end up a long way away, and it's the code-maintainer that comes along
later and doesn't spot it.

For my money, structured programming is all about putting code into little
self-contained boxes, and any path that suddenly arrives at another point
with several different possibilities for variables that have been
initialised or not, files that have been opened or closed or not, etc etc
is asking for trouble. YMMV of course.

All the best
Tim F