# Aesthetics of while ... do ... end versus while ...: ... end **URL:** \ **Category:** ruby-talk\ **Created:** [29 August 2005 23:52 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/aesthetics-of-while-do-end-versus-while-end/20482 "2005-08-29T23:52:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Nikolai\_Weibull](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce7236/32.png) [@Nikolai\_Weibull](https://rubytalk.org/u/Nikolai_Weibull)\ **Post date:** [29 August 2005 23:52 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/aesthetics-of-while-do-end-versus-while-end/20482/1 "2005-08-29T23:52:12Z")
OK, this is really quite lame, but what do you people prefer: while \ do \ end or while \: \ end ? The latter is shorter, but the puncutation sometimes meshes badly with the test. Any insights?,         nikolai > **路路路** > > -- > Nikolai Weibull: now available free of charge at [http://bitwi.se/](http://bitwi.se/)! > Born in Chicago, IL USA; currently residing in Gothenburg, Sweden. > main(){printf(&linux["\021%six\012\0"],(linux)["have"]+"fun"-97);} ---
**Author:** ![daz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/87869e/32.png) [@daz](https://rubytalk.org/u/daz)\ **Post date:** [30 August 2005 04:11 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/aesthetics-of-while-do-end-versus-while-end/20482/2 "2005-08-30T04:11:23Z")
Nikolai Weibull wrote: > OK, this is really quite lame, but what do you people prefer: > > while \ do \ end > > or > > while \: \ end > > ? > > The latter is shorter, but the puncutation sometimes meshes badly with > the test. Any insights?, >         nikolai \ while \ x = 3; p x -= 1 while x \> 0 daz ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_Kearns1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e9a140/32.png) [@Doug\_Kearns1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Doug_Kearns1)\ **Post date:** [30 August 2005 11:23 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/aesthetics-of-while-do-end-versus-while-end/20482/3 "2005-08-30T11:23:42Z")
> OK, this is really quite lame, but what do you people prefer: > > while \ do \ end I always use 'do' with 'while', 'until' and 'for' - probably the result of too much shell programming. > or > > while \: \ end I don't think I've ever actually seen this used in anger and a quick search of lib/ didn't seem to turn up any. > ? > > The latter is shorter, but the puncutation sometimes meshes badly with > the test. Any insights?, Not really. 馃槈 Regards, Doug > **路路路** > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 08:52:12AM +0900, Nikolai Weibull wrote: ---
**Author:** ![David\_Vallner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/eb9ed0/32.png) [@David\_Vallner](https://rubytalk.org/u/David_Vallner)\ **Post date:** [30 August 2005 13:43 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/aesthetics-of-while-do-end-versus-while-end/20482/4 "2005-08-30T13:43:28Z")
Nikolai Weibull wrote: > OK, this is really quite lame, but what do you people prefer: > > while \ do \ end > > or > > while \: \ end > > ? > > The latter is shorter, but the puncutation sometimes meshes badly with > the test. Any insights?, >        nikolai I could've sworn you could ommit the "do", as in:   while fred is barney     frobnicate(womble, fluff)   end if you do yourself some good and resist the urge to golf the loop on a single line. David Vallner (hate not having Ruby and an internet connection on the same computer) ---
**Author:** ![Christian\_Neukirche1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ee7513/32.png) [@Christian\_Neukirche1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Christian_Neukirche1)\ **Post date:** [30 August 2005 14:46 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/aesthetics-of-while-do-end-versus-while-end/20482/5 "2005-08-30T14:46:11Z")
Nikolai Weibull \ writes: > OK, this is really quite lame, but what do you people prefer: > > while \ do \ end > > or > > while \: \ end > > ? > > The latter is shorter, but the puncutation sometimes meshes badly with > the test. Any insights?, I generally use   while predicate?     code   end or, if I want it to be on a single line (can't remember doing that for while-loops):   while predicate?; code; end > **路路路** > > >         nikolai > > -- > Christian Neukirchen \ [http://chneukirchen.org](http://chneukirchen.org) ---
**Author:** ![Nikolai\_Weibull](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce7236/32.png) [@Nikolai\_Weibull](https://rubytalk.org/u/Nikolai_Weibull)\ **Post date:** [30 August 2005 11:07 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/aesthetics-of-while-do-end-versus-while-end/20482/6 "2005-08-30T11:07:39Z")
daz wrote: > \ while \ > > x = 3; p x -= 1 while x \> 0 Yeah, that's what I'd use, but the problem is that x is first defined in the test, so I have to use one of the two forms listed above,         nikolai > **路路路** > > -- > Nikolai Weibull: now available free of charge at [http://bitwi.se/\](http://bitwi.se/%5C)! > Born in Chicago, IL USA; currently residing in Gothenburg, Sweden. > main(){printf(&linux["\021%six\012\0"],(linux)["have"]+"fun"-97);} ---
**Author:** ![Nikolai\_Weibull](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce7236/32.png) [@Nikolai\_Weibull](https://rubytalk.org/u/Nikolai_Weibull)\ **Post date:** [30 August 2005 15:25 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/aesthetics-of-while-do-end-versus-while-end/20482/7 "2005-08-30T15:25:31Z")
Christian Neukirchen wrote: > Nikolai Weibull \ writes: > > I generally use > >   while predicate? >     code >   end > > or, if I want it to be on a single line (can't remember doing that for > while-loops): > >   while predicate?; code; end I'd rather use : or do than ; here. My question was with regards to putting the whole while on one line, yes. That's why I wrote my templates the way I did. I guess I should have been a bit more explicit about it, though, as two of you commented on this. I'd write one-liners as \ while \ but the problem is that \ sometimes uses a variable defined in \, so this won't always pass initial checking,         nikolai > **路路路** > > -- > Nikolai Weibull: now available free of charge at [http://bitwi.se/\](http://bitwi.se/%5C)! > Born in Chicago, IL USA; currently residing in Gothenburg, Sweden. > main(){printf(&linux["\021%six\012\0"],(linux)["have"]+"fun"-97);} ---
**Author:** ![Christian\_Neukirche1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ee7513/32.png) [@Christian\_Neukirche1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Christian_Neukirche1)\ **Post date:** [30 August 2005 16:03 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/aesthetics-of-while-do-end-versus-while-end/20482/8 "2005-08-30T16:03:10Z")
Nikolai Weibull \ writes: > Christian Neukirchen wrote: > > >   while predicate?; code; end > > I'd rather use : or do than ; here. My question was with regards to > putting the whole while on one line, yes. I disagree, and I don't see why everyone hates the semicolon. I think it is more consistent to write   while foo; bar; baz; quux; end than to write   while foo: bar; baz; quux; end because, after all, this is not allowed:   while foo: bar: baz: quux: end ";" just means the same as a newline, and is meant to be used that way, YMMV. > **路路路** > > >         nikolai > > -- > Christian Neukirchen \ [http://chneukirchen.org](http://chneukirchen.org) ---
**Author:** ![Nikolai\_Weibull](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce7236/32.png) [@Nikolai\_Weibull](https://rubytalk.org/u/Nikolai_Weibull)\ **Post date:** [30 August 2005 21:09 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/aesthetics-of-while-do-end-versus-while-end/20482/9 "2005-08-30T21:09:53Z")
Christian Neukirchen wrote: > Nikolai Weibull \ writes: > \> Christian Neukirchen wrote: > \> \> while predicate?; code; end > \> I'd rather use : or do than ; here. My question was with regards to > \> putting the whole while on one line, yes. > I disagree, and I don't see why everyone hates the semicolon. > > I think it is more consistent to write > >   while foo; bar; baz; quux; end > > than to write > >   while foo: bar; baz; quux; end > > because, after all, this is not allowed: > >   while foo: bar: baz: quux: end Yes, but you can write it as   while foo: bar; baz; quux end Which, in my opinion, clearly separates the foo from the bar and the baz. > ";" just means the same as a newline, and is meant to be used that > way, YMMV. And so is : or do after a while. I have nothing against ; per se, but in this case I'd rather use : or do,         nikolai > **路路路** > > -- > Nikolai Weibull: now available free of charge at [http://bitwi.se/\](http://bitwi.se/%5C)! > Born in Chicago, IL USA; currently residing in Gothenburg, Sweden. > main(){printf(&linux["\021%six\012\0"],(linux)["have"]+"fun"-97);} ---
**Author:** ![Daniel\_Brockman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ed8c4c/32.png) [@Daniel\_Brockman](https://rubytalk.org/u/Daniel_Brockman)\ **Post date:** [31 August 2005 16:32 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/aesthetics-of-while-do-end-versus-while-end/20482/10 "2005-08-31T16:32:52Z")
Nikolai Weibull \ writes: > > I disagree, and I don't see why everyone hates > > the semicolon. > > > > I think it is more consistent to write > > > >   while foo; bar; baz; quux; end > > > > [...] > > Yes, but you can write it as > >   while foo: bar; baz; quux end > > Which, in my opinion, clearly separates the foo from the > bar and the baz. Since we're already discussing mitutiae, I'll chime in and say that I too prefer the colon here, simply because it makes for more readable code. I'd write it as follows:    while foo: bar ; baz ; quux end I always put spaces around semicolons in Ruby code --- perhaps to reflect their rather symmetrical nature... Actually, I'd probably use `do' rather than the colon. I'd like to see `do' and `:' allowed after `def'.    def delta: last - first end    def request\_foo do send "NEED FOO" end In re while modifiers, I have defined a high-precedence statement separator operator called `and then', which I occasionally use when writing two-statement while loops:    lather and then rinse while dirty? Apart from the higher precedence, the semantics of `foo and then bar' is the same as `foo ; bar'. The preprocessor translates `foo and then bar' into `foo or true and bar'. No punchline, just some random thoughts. > **路路路** > > -- > Daniel Brockman \