Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.lang.c > #393156
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Date | 2025-05-04 21:32 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <86tt5z65k9.fsf@linuxsc.com> (permalink) |
| References | (11 earlier) <vtmgj8$g81k$1@dont-email.me> <vtnfjj$1gk91$1@dont-email.me> <vto4fu$23kmr$1@dont-email.me> <20250416150837.00004587@yahoo.com> <q3PLP.1774064$FVcd.1478364@fx10.iad> |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: > >> On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 12:32:13 +0100 >> bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> >>> But never, mind, C's for-loop will still be the most superior to >>> everybody here. I'd have an easier time arguing about religion! >> >> Who exactly said that it is superior? Surely not me. >> I think, most posters here would agree with my stance that C for() is >> non-ideal. esp. for writer, but good enough. > > I disagree with that statement, [...] Does this mean you think the for() control structure defined in ISO C is ideal? I'm okay with using C for() statements as an iterative control structure, but I don't think I'd describe it as ideal.
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 21:32 -0700
csiph-web