For/Next

[GEOSoft]

Not important but could be nice and it's really just for the devs

As it is right now we have to use a variable whaen using the loop.

For $x = 1 To 3
   ; Do whatever.
Next

How difficult would it be to change that so we could also use

For 1 To 3
   ; Do whatever.
Next

What brought it to mind was this

Local $aArray[50]
For $i = 0 To Ubound($aArray) -1
   $aArray[$i] = ""
   For $j = 1 To 3;; $j is never referenced so "For 1 To 3" would have been fine if it worked
      $aArray[$i] &= Chr(Random(97, 122, 1))
   Next
Next

Valik has seen enouugh of the word "curious" so I won't use it.

[Kip]

There're only a view cases in which you don't have to know $i, so why change the syntax for something that's very rare?

[Valik]

Eh, it's not very common to use a loop without needing the variable. I don't see why we need to introduce syntax that's likely to trip up new users just to provide minor syntactic sugar to support a corner case.

[GEOSoft]

Eh, it's not very common to use a loop without needing the variable. I don't see why we need to introduce syntax that's likely to trip up new users just to provide minor syntactic sugar to support a corner case.

I hadn't considered the confusion angle, so question asked and answered. Chalk it up to another brilliant idea gone astray.

[WideBoyDixon]

Maybe there's scope in some distant future version for:

Repeat 3
  ; Do some stuff
EndRepeat

WBD

[Valik]

Maybe there's scope in some distant future version for:

Repeat 3
      ; Do some stuff
     EndRepeat

WBD

Not when I can do it 3 different ways already:

Local $i = 1
While $i <= 3
    $i += 1
WEndoÝ÷ Ù«­¢+Ù½ÈÀÌØí¤ôÄQ¼Ì)9áÐoÝ÷ Ù«­¢+Ù1½°ÀÌØí¤ôÄ)¼(ÀÌØí¤¬ôÄ)U¹Ñ¥°ÀÌØí¤ÐìôÌ

[Richard Robertson]

Just think, if we had a goto, you could do it a fourth way.

Local $i = 1
top:
$i += 1
If $i < 3 Then Goto top

Not to be taken seriously.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Richard Robertson

[Jon]

There's some topic somewhere where I added this:

Loop 10

EndLoop

But there were no perf gains (the only possible benefit as we have so many different loops already) so I got rid of it.

[condoman]

I would agree to the GOTO only if it could be a computed one.

[WideBoyDixon]

Not when I can do it 3 different ways already:

Is this a bad time to point out that the third one only loops twice? The original post was about not having to use a variable. I know it's not really important but none of these address the original proposal since they all use a variable. As an aside, the documentation says that the variable in a for loop will be created with local scope even if MustDeclareVars is turned on. Does anyone know if the scope is local to the for loop or local to the function?

EDIT: Strike that, I just downloaded the source code from V3.1.0.0 and I see that it's created local to the function.

WBD

Edited May 8, 2009 by WideBoyDixon

[GEOSoft]

Lets not regress to the GOTO (or GOSUB) discussion again. There are a few people around who probably still have someones boot print embedded on their arse over that.

Edited May 8, 2009 by GEOSoft

[Kip]

Loops don't create a new scope.

[weaponx]

Loops don't create a new scope.

Nope but the variable created in a For loop will persist after the loop completes, in kind of a strange way.

For $X = 1 to 4
Next
ConsoleWrite($X & @CRLF) ;Output = 5

[Richard Robertson]

Loops create a new scope in languages I use.

[weaponx]

Loops create a new scope in languages I use.

Examples? The For loop is an exception because it doesn't require the dependent variable to exist prior to entry.

[monoceres]

Nope but the variable created in a For loop will persist after the loop completes, in kind of a strange way.

For $X = 1 to 4
Next
ConsoleWrite($X & @CRLF) ;Output = 5

Not very strange. $X in this case is incremented until to doesn't meet the logical test anymore (in this case <=4) and it doesn't fail until $X=5.

[Richard Robertson]

C# for sure... I think the Microsoft compiler for C++ does it, but I can't recall.

[Valik]

C++ and C# create a new scope every time you use { }, more or less:

void Test()
{
    // Function scope
    int iFunctionScope = 0;
    {
        // Nested scope
        int iNestedScope = 2;
    }
    // iNestedScope no longer exists
}

AutoIt only has function scope. Variables created inside conditional statements, loops, et cetera still go to function scope and not a new nested scope.

WideBoyDixon, it's called dry-coding and not paying much attention. You get the point at any rate.