Talk:Repeat loop

Existance of Repeat Loops (yes, they exist!)
Repeat loops exist in many programming languages. Many languages have a syntax for repeating (not just for loops), some come with for loops and while loops too in addition to repeat loops, and so forth. The repeat loop is a type of syntactic sugar. Not having good citations is NOT a good reason for deletion. Notice that do while loops basically HAS NO CITATIONS.

Then why hasn't the do while loop article been deleted or even speedily deleted? Because it is obvious to every computer programmer that do while loops exist and are notable.

Because repeat loops exist, just as much as do [ ... } while loops exist, there is no real reason to nominate the article for deletion. Even if the repeat loop article supposedly has 0 good citations, and must be deleted because of that, then I propose that we must also delete do while loops. Why? It has no citations. At all. But obviously, deleting do while loops would be a very bad idea. Because of the do while loop article, and the importance/notability of the repeat loop in addition to the do while loop in general purpose computer programming, I believe this article should not be deleted according to the AfD guidelines. &mdash; Carrot Lord &mdash; Carrot Lord (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Discuss the possibility of merging Repeat loops into Do while loops. &mdash; Carrot Lord (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move
Discuss renaming this article to Repeat Loop. &mdash; Carrot Lord (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 'Repeat loop' is a better, more serachable name, as the article discusses the repeat control statement, not the repetition control statement. Given that we have articles for all the variants--do-while, while, for, foreach, etc.--having a 'repeat loop' article makes more sense than folding it into the do-while or while loop articles. Mark viking (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input. I will move the page, and see if anyone disagrees. &mdash; Carrot Lord (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... Comparing the two articles, there has been a rewriting of and an expansion of the repeat loop material mentioned in the Control flow article; in particular a number of language examples have been added. Thus the article does not formally meet the CSD A10 criteria for speedy deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)