[imp-hackers] LOOP non-compliance

[Nikodemus Siivola]

On 8 April 2012 11:44, Stas Boukarev <stassats at gmail.com> wrote:

>> This is probably a silent cry in the woods and nobody will listen, but
>> could other implementations please warn users that there is a precise order
>> of statements in LOOP?

> I wish the opposite was true (standard or not), that all implementations
> accepted (loop while ... for ..), it's such a pain to write LOOPs without this
> construct.

I'm on both sides of the fence at once. When working on my own stuff,
I quite like the non-standard option. When working stuff mean to be
portable, I don't want to be bitten by it.

Cheers,

 -- Nikodemus