Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.lang.c > #393138
| Path | csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Date | Sun, 04 May 2025 07:40:30 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Lines | 33 |
| Message-ID | <86cyco782p.fsf@linuxsc.com> (permalink) |
| References | <vspbjh$8dvd$1@dont-email.me> <vtbc6o$1te2o$1@dont-email.me> <vtbhjv$24api$1@dont-email.me> <vtbn2k$293r1$1@dont-email.me> <vtc19j$2kqlj$1@dont-email.me> <87a58mqt2o.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vtc7mp$2q5hr$1@dont-email.me> <vtcqf6$3j95s$1@dont-email.me> <vtdh4q$b3kt$1@dont-email.me> <vtf7fe$1qtpg$1@dont-email.me> <vtgfuf$31ug1$1@dont-email.me> <20250413072027.219@kylheku.com> <vtgpce$39229$1@dont-email.me> <vti2ki$g23v$1@dont-email.me> <vtin99$vu24$1@dont-email.me> <vtiuf0$18au8$1@dont-email.me> <vtj97r$1i3v3$1@dont-email.me> <vtl166$36p6b$1@dont-email.me> <vtlcg0$3f46a$2@dont-email.me> <20250415153419.00004cf7@yahoo.com> <vtlkpf$3mmqu$1@dont-email.me> |
| MIME-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
| Injection-Date | Sun, 04 May 2025 16:40:30 +0200 (CEST) |
| Injection-Info | dont-email.me; posting-host="f2e2a4892b4200c8deca4768c4473856"; logging-data="2179137"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19DF4Qs7MTv1dg4uk+qZ0OgzeHS3ec6wpI=" |
| User-Agent | Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) |
| Cancel-Lock | sha1:RYdiEsdqk8q0bcnOzVqpNytYOPE= sha1:UWx4n72NCK3ZMwR6JA4UVq4shpo= |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.lang.c:393138 |
Show key headers only | View raw
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 15/04/2025 13:34, Michael S wrote: > > <snip> > >> I suspect that 'while' loop is here in C because Dennis Ritchie wanted >> 'do .. while() ' and thought that if the keyword is here anyway than >> why not reuse it? >> In the hindsight, probably a mistake. > > In hindsight: > > $ find . -name \*.c | xargs cat | wc -l > 126343 > $ find . -name \*.c | xargs grep -w while | wc -l > 556 > $ find . -name \*.c | xargs grep -w for | wc -l > 1258 > > > So although I use for() about twice as much as I use while(), I still > find while a better option one time in three. That's useful enough to > make it worth keeping in the toolbox. Out of curiousity, I tabulated a similar set of statistics for a recent C project. Considering just the three iteration control structures (do/for/while), the results (rounded to the nearest 0.1 percent) were while 56.1 % for 24.1 % do/while 19.5 %
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next | Find similar
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-04 07:40 -0700
csiph-web