From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id JAA10015 for caml-redistribution; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 09:45:33 +0100 (MET)
Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA24618 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 21:14:55 +0100 (MET)
Received: from miss.wu-wien.ac.at (miss.wu-wien.ac.at [137.208.107.17])
	by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA09775
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 21:14:53 +0100 (MET)
Received: (from mottl@localhost)
	by miss.wu-wien.ac.at (8.9.0/8.9.0) id VAA24823
	for caml-list@inria.fr; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 21:14:48 +0100 (MET)
From: Markus Mottl <mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at>
Message-Id: <199902082014.VAA24823@miss.wu-wien.ac.at>
Subject: "while" with condition at end?
To: caml-list@inria.fr (OCAML)
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 21:14:47 +0100 (MET)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: weis

Hello!

I have just found out that there is no loop construct that checks the
termination condition at the end of the block. Is there some special
reason to this?

I'd like to write something like e.g.

  do
    ();
    ...;
  while (some_condition);

The only work-around is to either double the code and execute it once
before a "normal" while-loop (not elegant). The other option is to put
the block into a unit-function (a bit less efficient) and use it once
before and than in the loop (also not very elegant).
A construct of this kind would probably make the imperative features
more complete.

Best regards,
Markus Mottl

-- 
Markus Mottl, mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at, http://miss.wu-wien.ac.at/~mottl