while true: !!!

[Carel Fellinger]

Greg Ewing <greg at cosc.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> Oldayz wrote:
>> 
>> I thought something like forever: would be even more lucid

> If there is a break in the loop somewhere, it's
> not really forever, though, is it?

> So perhaps it should *really* be

>    for a while:
>       ...

but then again, it might not end, so it really should be spelled as

   while:
      'preferably a break somewhere'

> :-)
me to, but it wouldn't break any code (I think), and to me it makes sence:

  you forgo the loop testing upfront, so you leave it out instead of
  replacing it whith some ugly 'always true' stub-test

Would such a cosmetic change stand any change of being adopted by the BDFL?
-- 
groetjes, carel