whenever i see '<=' in code, my bug detectors start twitching. to begin with, doing effectively two tests in one always seems to over-complicate things.
In a low-level sense, branch-if-greater-or-equal is one instruction even on RISC machines — and not one any more "complex" than branch-if-greater.
In an abstract boolean-algebra sense, x <= y is the same as !(x > y).
i.e. two tests, or perhaps i should say logical operations. i'm not saying don't use '<=', but do check that it is doing what you think it should.
if: x <= y, do: foo(), else: nothing()
if: y < x, do: nothing(), else: foo()
if: y > x, do: nothing(), else: foo()
Nothing wrong with a do...while loop, but I've learned to look twice when crossing that particular street. Most loops that don't have bugs tend to support zero iterations seamlessly and inherently.
Being able to choose the right control structure (and data structures) can provide additional information to the correctness of the code than arbitrary choices which may perform the same function. Choosing the Most expressive options may or may not conflict with performance, in which case, comments are helpful to describe why more obvious approaches weren’t taken.
The thread had had one poster state they find <= suspicious in a for loop, and another about any do-while loop. I don't think these are literally the same thing (hence "if you squint") but I think they share a meaningful similarity of adding an extra pass through the loop compared to the other form and I thought that was interesting.