Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.lang.c > #393206
| 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 | Tue, 06 May 2025 05:59:20 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Lines | 47 |
| Message-ID | <86ecx13nfb.fsf@linuxsc.com> (permalink) |
| References | <vspbjh$8dvd$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> <20250415053852.166@kylheku.com> <vtm4ae$6d5j$1@dont-email.me> <H7yLP.2056536$OrR5.1414451@fx18.iad> <vtmgj8$g81k$1@dont-email.me> <ISOLP.1774061$FVcd.178862@fx10.iad> <20250416173721.000030b5@yahoo.com> |
| MIME-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
| Injection-Date | Tue, 06 May 2025 14:59:21 +0200 (CEST) |
| Injection-Info | dont-email.me; posting-host="f84420402be78ce51ba0e8f0077f27e2"; logging-data="3118472"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/x7s7gnwj0CN9pWsPR2Ekr7Gm/oqkd8qM=" |
| User-Agent | Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) |
| Cancel-Lock | sha1:hKyV0NKWaKv/omMPIlLJVKPlNGg= sha1:XinHTndNhsx6okJZEKRIp3z3wLw= |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.lang.c:393206 |
Show key headers only | View raw
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: > On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 14:09:44 GMT > scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: > >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> >>> On 15/04/2025 20:07, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>> >>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 15/04/2025 14:19, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thats's fine. But it means a real 'for' loop doesn't exist in C; >>>>> you have to emulate it using that 3-way construct, which is naff, >>>>> and also error prone. >>>> >>>> Real for loops _are_ a three-way construct. >>>> >>>> 135 FOR I=1 TO 10 STEP 2 [BASIC] >>>> >>>> for(i = 1; i < 11; i += 2) [C/C++] >>>> >>>> do 1 = 1, 10, 2 [FORTRAN] >>> >>> Any step other than 1 is unusual. So Basic and Fortran would >>> typically be: >>> >>> for i = 1 to 10 # 6 tokens; Basic >>> do i = 1, 10 # 6 tokens; Fortran >>> for i = 1, 10 # 6 tokens; Lua >>> for i to 10 do # 5 tokens; Mine (using default start) >>> to 10 do # 3 tokens; Mine (when index is not needed) >>> >>> Let's look at that C again: >>> >>> for (int i = 1; i < 11; i += 1) # 15 tokens; C >> >> for(i = 1; i++ <= 10;) > > I'd reject this code during review. > Hopefully, you too. I'm curious to know the basis for your reaction. What about the code would prompt your judgment to reject it? Is it just a specific reaction, or does it represent some more general pattern (and if so then what more general pattern)?
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-06 05:59 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-07 12:32 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-07 14:54 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-07 13:50 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-11 23:48 -0700
csiph-web