Talk:Loops/Do-while: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(self-contradictory task?) |
(Possible rewording.) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
If value is supposed to start at "zero" and looping is to be performed "while value mod 6 is not equal to zero", then it follows that the loops should be executed zero times since 0 mod 6 == 0. Requiring that the loop should execute at least once is in conflict with the other requirements.[[User:Sgeier|Sgeier]] 04:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC) |
If value is supposed to start at "zero" and looping is to be performed "while value mod 6 is not equal to zero", then it follows that the loops should be executed zero times since 0 mod 6 == 0. Requiring that the loop should execute at least once is in conflict with the other requirements.[[User:Sgeier|Sgeier]] 04:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
: I believe the goal is to demonstrate a post-execute condition check, but I don't have a good idea of precise-yet-clear ways to describe it, and that interpretation of the behavior is specific to imperative programming. "Process at least once, or while condition is true" might be closer. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 06:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 06:31, 15 September 2009
self-contradictory task?
If value is supposed to start at "zero" and looping is to be performed "while value mod 6 is not equal to zero", then it follows that the loops should be executed zero times since 0 mod 6 == 0. Requiring that the loop should execute at least once is in conflict with the other requirements.Sgeier 04:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- I believe the goal is to demonstrate a post-execute condition check, but I don't have a good idea of precise-yet-clear ways to describe it, and that interpretation of the behavior is specific to imperative programming. "Process at least once, or while condition is true" might be closer. --Michael Mol 06:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)