ChatGPT解决这个技术问题 Extra ChatGPT

How to emulate a do-while loop?

I need to emulate a do-while loop in a Python program. Unfortunately, the following straightforward code does not work:

list_of_ints = [ 1, 2, 3 ]
iterator = list_of_ints.__iter__()
element = None

while True:
  if element:
    print element

  try:
    element = iterator.next()
  except StopIteration:
    break

print "done"

Instead of "1,2,3,done", it prints the following output:

[stdout:]1
[stdout:]2
[stdout:]3
None['Traceback (most recent call last):
', '  File "test_python.py", line 8, in <module>
    s = i.next()
', 'StopIteration
']

What can I do in order to catch the 'stop iteration' exception and break a while loop properly?

An example of why such a thing may be needed is shown below as pseudocode.

State machine:

s = ""
while True :
  if state is STATE_CODE :
    if "//" in s :
      tokens.add( TOKEN_COMMENT, s.split( "//" )[1] )
      state = STATE_COMMENT
    else :
      tokens.add( TOKEN_CODE, s )
  if state is STATE_COMMENT :
    if "//" in s :
      tokens.append( TOKEN_COMMENT, s.split( "//" )[1] )
    else
      state = STATE_CODE
      # Re-evaluate same line
      continue
  try :
    s = i.next()
  except StopIteration :
    break
Um... That's not a proper "do-while"; that's simply a "do-forever". What's wrong with "while True" and "break"?
S. Lott: I'm pretty sure his question was about how to implement do while in python. So, I wouldn't expect his code to be completely correct. Also, he is very close to a do while... he is checking a condition at the end of the "forever" loop to see if he should break out. It's not "do-forever".
so ... your initial example code actually works for me with no problem and i don't get that traceback. that's a proper idiom for a do while loop where the break condition is iterator exhaustion. typically, you'd set s=i.next() rather than None and possibly do some initial work rather than just make your first pass through the loop useless though.
@underrun Unfortunately, the post is not tagged with which version of Python was being used - the original snippet works for me too using 2.7, presumably due to updates to the Python language itself.

j
jesugmz

I am not sure what you are trying to do. You can implement a do-while loop like this:

while True:
  stuff()
  if fail_condition:
    break

Or:

stuff()
while not fail_condition:
  stuff()

What are you doing trying to use a do while loop to print the stuff in the list? Why not just use:

for i in l:
  print i
print "done"

Update:

So do you have a list of lines? And you want to keep iterating through it? How about:

for s in l: 
  while True: 
    stuff() 
    # use a "break" instead of s = i.next()

Does that seem like something close to what you would want? With your code example, it would be:

for s in some_list:
  while True:
    if state is STATE_CODE:
      if "//" in s:
        tokens.add( TOKEN_COMMENT, s.split( "//" )[1] )
        state = STATE_COMMENT
      else :
        tokens.add( TOKEN_CODE, s )
    if state is STATE_COMMENT:
      if "//" in s:
        tokens.append( TOKEN_COMMENT, s.split( "//" )[1] )
        break # get next s
      else:
        state = STATE_CODE
        # re-evaluate same line
        # continues automatically

i need to create a state machine. In state machine it's a normal case to re-evaluate CURRENT statement, so i need to 'continue' without iterating next item. I don't know how to do such thing in 'for s in l:' iteration :(. In do-while loop, 'continue' will re-evaluate current item, iteration at end
Do you mean you need to keep track of your place in the list? That way when you return the same state, you can pick up where you left off? Give a bit more context. It seems like you might be better off using an index into the list.
Thanks, I commented on your pseudocode... your example seems sort of bad since you seem to handle "//" the same way no matter what state you are in. Also, is this real code where you are processing comments? What if you have strings with slashes? ie: print "blah // <-- does that mess you up?"
It's a shame that python does not have a do-while loop. Python is DRY, eh ?
Also see PEP 315 for the official stance/justification: "Users of the language are advised to use the while-True form with an inner if-break when a do-while loop would have been appropriate."
m
martineau

Here's a very simple way to emulate a do-while loop:

condition = True
while condition:
    # loop body here
    condition = test_loop_condition()
# end of loop

The key features of a do-while loop are that the loop body always executes at least once, and that the condition is evaluated at the bottom of the loop body. The control structure show here accomplishes both of these with no need for exceptions or break statements. It does introduce one extra Boolean variable.


It doesn't always add an extra boolean variable. Often there's something(s) that already exist whose state can be tested.
The reason I like this solution the most is that it doesn't add another condition, it still is just one cycle, and if you pick a good name for the helper variable the whole structure is quite clear.
NOTE: While this does address the original question, this approach is less flexible than using break. Specifically, if there is logic needed AFTER test_loop_condition(), that should not be executed once we are done, it has to be wrapped in if condition:. BTW, condition is vague. More descriptive: more or notDone.
@ToolmakerSteve I disagree. I rarely use break in loops and when I encounter it in code that I maintain I find that the loop, most often, could have been written without it. The presented solution is, IMO, the clearest way to represent a do while construct in python.
Ideally, condition will be named something descriptive, like has_no_errors or end_reached (in which case the loop would start while not end_reached
e
evan54

My code below might be a useful implementation, highlighting the main difference between vs as I understand it.

So in this one case, you always go through the loop at least once.

first_pass = True
while first_pass or condition:
    first_pass = False
    do_stuff()

Correct answer, I'de argue. Plus it avoids break, for safe use in try/except blocks.
does the jit/optimizer avoid re-testing first_pass after the first pass? otherwise, it would be an annoying, though perhaps minor, performance issue
@markhahn this is really minor but if you care of such details, you can intervert the 2 booleans in the loop: while condition or first_pass:. Then conditionis always evaluated first and overall first_pass is evaluated only twice (first and last iteration). Don't forget to initialize condition before the loop to whatever you want.
HM, interesting I actually had picked the other way round purposely to not have to initialise condition and thus requiring minimal changes to the code. That said I see your point
@AkhilNambiar There's no problem with that? It's not the first pass... after the first pass.
P
Peter Mortensen
do {
  stuff()
} while (condition())

->

while True:
  stuff()
  if not condition():
    break

You can do a function:

def do_while(stuff, condition):
  while condition(stuff()):
    pass

But 1) It's ugly. 2) Condition should be a function with one parameter, supposed to be filled by stuff (it's the only reason not to use the classic while loop.)


Writing while True: stuff(); if not condition(): break is a very good idea. Thank you!
@ZeD, why is 1) ugly? It's quite Ok, IMHO
@SergeyLossev It's going to be difficult to grasp the logic of the program because it appears as a infinite loop at first, if you have a lot of 'stuff' code in between.
C
Community

Exception will break the loop, so you might as well handle it outside the loop.

try:
  while True:
    if s:
      print s
    s = i.next()
except StopIteration:   
  pass

I guess that the problem with your code is that behaviour of break inside except is not defined. Generally break goes only one level up, so e.g. break inside try goes directly to finally (if it exists) an out of the try, but not out of the loop.

Related PEP: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3136
Related question: Breaking out of nested loops


It's good practice though to only have inside the try statement what you expect to throw your exception, lest you catch unwanted exceptions.
@PiPeep: RTFM, search for EAFP.
@PiPeep: no problem, just keep in mind, that what's true for some languages, may not be true for other. Python is optimized for intensive use of exceptions.
break and continue are perfectly well-defined in any clause of a try/except/finally statement. They simply ignore them, and either break out of or move on to the next iteration of the containing while or for loop as appropriate. As components of the looping constructs, they're only relevant to while and for statements, and trigger a syntax error if they run into a class or def statement before reaching the innermost loop. They ignore if, with and try statements.
.. which is an important case
u
u0b34a0f6ae

Here is a crazier solution of a different pattern -- using coroutines. The code is still very similar, but with one important difference; there are no exit conditions at all! The coroutine (chain of coroutines really) just stops when you stop feeding it with data.

def coroutine(func):
    """Coroutine decorator

    Coroutines must be started, advanced to their first "yield" point,
    and this decorator does this automatically.
    """
    def startcr(*ar, **kw):
        cr = func(*ar, **kw)
        cr.next()
        return cr
    return startcr

@coroutine
def collector(storage):
    """Act as "sink" and collect all sent in @storage"""
    while True:
        storage.append((yield))

@coroutine      
def state_machine(sink):
    """ .send() new parts to be tokenized by the state machine,
    tokens are passed on to @sink
    """ 
    s = ""
    state = STATE_CODE
    while True: 
        if state is STATE_CODE :
            if "//" in s :
                sink.send((TOKEN_COMMENT, s.split( "//" )[1] ))
                state = STATE_COMMENT
            else :
                sink.send(( TOKEN_CODE, s ))
        if state is STATE_COMMENT :
            if "//" in s :
                sink.send(( TOKEN_COMMENT, s.split( "//" )[1] ))
            else
                state = STATE_CODE
                # re-evaluate same line
                continue
        s = (yield)

tokens = []
sm = state_machine(collector(tokens))
for piece in i:
    sm.send(piece)

The code above collects all tokens as tuples in tokens and I assume there is no difference between .append() and .add() in the original code.


How would you write this in Python 3.x today?
G
Gareth Lock

The way I've done this is as follows...

condition = True
while condition:
     do_stuff()
     condition = (<something that evaluates to True or False>)

This seems to me to be the simplistic solution, I'm surprised I haven't seen it here already. This can obviously also be inverted to

while not condition:

etc.


You say "I'm surprised I haven't seen it here already" - but I don't see any difference from, let's say, powderflask's solution from 2010. It's exactly the same. ("condition = True while condition: # loop body here condition = test_loop_condition() # end of loop")
D
Danilo Matrangolo Marano

I believe that this do-while simulation on python has a syntax format closest to the do-while structure format present in C and Java.

do = True
while do:
    [...]
    do = <condition>

why not use simply do = <condition> ?
@lenik do = <condition> does not truely emulate a do ... while loop
@soulmachine Why not?
Because a do ... while loop runs the first iteration unconditionally, always, and only evaluates the condition before the next iterations.
J
Jonathan Shemer

Python 3.8 has the answer.

It's called assignment expressions. from the documentation:

# Loop over fixed length blocks
while (block := f.read(256)) != '':
    process(block)

Nope. do body while condition first executes the body and then evaluates the condition. your construct first checks the condition. it's a while ... do loop.
I would prefer using functools.partial() and iter() for this: for block in iter(partial, file.read, 256), ""): process(block).
m
martineau

for a do - while loop containing try statements

loop = True
while loop:
    generic_stuff()
    try:
        questionable_stuff()
#       to break from successful completion
#       loop = False  
    except:
        optional_stuff()
#       to break from unsuccessful completion - 
#       the case referenced in the OP's question
        loop = False
   finally:
        more_generic_stuff()

alternatively, when there's no need for the 'finally' clause

while True:
    generic_stuff()
    try:
        questionable_stuff()
#       to break from successful completion
#       break  
    except:
        optional_stuff()
#       to break from unsuccessful completion - 
#       the case referenced in the OP's question
        break

M
MuSheng
while condition is True: 
  stuff()
else:
  stuff()

Ew. That seems significantly uglier than using a break.
That is clever, but it requires stuff to be a function or for the code body to be repeated.
All that's needed is while condition: because is True is implied.
this fails if condition depends on some inner variable of stuff(), because that variable is not defined at that moment.
Not the same logic, because on the last iteration when condition != True : It calls the code a final time. Where as a Do While, calls the code once first, then checks condition before re-running. Do While : execute block once; then check and re-run, this answer: check and re-run; then execute code block once. Big difference!
N
Naftuli Kay

Quick hack:

def dowhile(func = None, condition = None):
    if not func or not condition:
        return
    else:
        func()
        while condition():
            func()

Use like so:

>>> x = 10
>>> def f():
...     global x
...     x = x - 1
>>> def c():
        global x
        return x > 0
>>> dowhile(f, c)
>>> print x
0

P
Peter Mortensen

Why don't you just do

for s in l :
    print s
print "done"

?


i need to create a state machine. In state machine it's a normal case to re-evaluate CURRENT statement, so i need to 'continue' without iterating next item. I don't know how to do such thing in 'for s in l:' iteration :(. In do-while loop, 'continue' will re-evaluate current item, iteration at end.
then, can you define some pseudo-code for your state machine, so we can hint you towards the best pythonic solution ? I don't know much about state machines(and am probably not the only one), so if you tell us a bit about your algorithm, this will be easier for us to help you.
For loop does not work for things like: a = fun() while a == 'zxc': sleep(10) a = fun()
This completely misses the point of checking a boolean condition
n
nehem

While loop:

while condition:
  print("hello")
  

Do while loop:

while True:
  print("hello")
  if not condition:
    break

Also you can use any true boolean value as condition:

while 1:
  print("hello")
  if not condition:
    break

Another variant:

check = 1
while check:
    print("hello")
    check = condition

A
Ajit

If you're in a scenario where you are looping while a resource is unavaliable or something similar that throws an exception, you could use something like

import time

while True:
    try:
       f = open('some/path', 'r')
    except IOError:
       print('File could not be read. Retrying in 5 seconds')   
       time.sleep(5)
    else:
       break

m
martineau

You wondered:

What can I do in order to catch the 'stop iteration' exception and break a while loop properly?

You could do it as shown below and which also makes use of the assignment expressions feature (aka “the walrus operator”) that was introduced in Python 3.8:

list_of_ints = [1, 2, 3]
iterator = iter(list_of_ints)

try:
    while (element := next(iterator)):
        print(element)
except StopIteration:
    print("done")

Another possibility (that would work from Python 2.6 to 3.x) would be to provide a default argument to the built-in next() function to avoid the StopIteration exception:

SENTINEL = object()  # Unique object.
list_of_ints = [1, 2, 3]
iterator = iter(list_of_ints)

while True:
    element = next(iterator, SENTINEL)
    if element is SENTINEL:
        break
    print(element)

print("done")

m
martineau

See if this helps :

Set a flag inside the exception handler and check it before working on the s.

flagBreak = false;
while True :

    if flagBreak : break

    if s :
        print s
    try :
        s = i.next()
    except StopIteration :
        flagBreak = true

print "done"

Could be simplified by using while not flagBreak: and removing the if (flagBreak) : break.
I avoid variables named flag--I am unable to infer what a True value or False value mean. Instead, use done or endOfIteration. The code turns into while not done: ....
L
Love Putin

For me a typical while loop will be something like this:

xBool = True
# A counter to force a condition (eg. yCount = some integer value)

while xBool:
    # set up the condition (eg. if yCount > 0):
        (Do something)
        yCount = yCount - 1
    else:
        # (condition is not met, set xBool False)
        xBool = False

I could include a for..loop within the while loop as well, if situation so warrants, for looping through another set of condition.


d
dmcontador
while True:
    try:
        # stuff
        stuff_1()
        if some_cond:
            continue
        if other_cond:
            break
        stuff_2()
    finally:
        # condition
        if not condition:
            break

[x] condition checked only after running stuff

[x] stuff is not a function call

[x] condition is not a function call

[x] stuff can contain flow control

[ ] Avoid checking condition if stuff called break (can be done with another boolean)


f
fr_andres

The built-in iter function does specifically that:

for x in iter(YOUR_FN, TERM_VAL):
    ...

E.g. (tested in Py2 and 3):

class Easy:
  X = 0
  @classmethod
  def com(cls):
    cls.X += 1
    return cls.X

for x in iter(Easy.com, 10):
  print(">>>", x)

If you want to give a condition to terminate instead of a value, you always can set an equality, and require that equality to be True.