Talk:Loop-and-a-half

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science

Low

This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

Neologism

The topic is valuable, but the loop and a half is not a recognized term of art. Knuth doesn't use these words. McConnell doesn't use these words. Astrachan does, but does not claim it as a definition. The topic is worth a mention in a structured programming class or in While loop, an article worthy of improvement. A loop and a half is merely an incarnation of a while loop with exit in the middle. The term doesn't even appear in the Free online dictionary of computing. One mention does not make a new definition. Rhadow (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rhadow, your breed of "editors" is why I always dearly regret trying to contribute to Wikipedia. I am deleting the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarbarianAtTheGates (talk • contribs) 12:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BarbarianAtTheGates, don't delete it. Add it to While loop and redirect. That way you get credit for a new article. Rhadow (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support the merge proposal, this article should redirect to a section on the subject in While loop. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]