Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #392008 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-04-04 16:23 -0300 |
| Last post | 2025-10-16 00:43 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 698 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 16:23 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-04 21:18 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 17:31 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-04 20:34 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 17:37 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-04 21:01 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 14:36 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-04 20:39 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 17:43 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 17:46 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-04-08 19:00 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-05 14:54 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-05 17:54 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-05 16:10 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-05 23:37 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-06 14:41 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-06 10:52 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-06 14:45 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-04 13:48 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 17:58 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-06 05:47 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-06 16:13 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-06 07:32 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-06 19:03 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-07 05:45 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-07 21:02 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-07 19:31 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-08 10:12 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-08 12:35 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-08 16:50 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-08 17:28 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-08 10:32 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-08 19:04 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-08 14:18 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-08 23:38 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-08 16:27 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-09 01:02 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-08 22:55 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-08 22:56 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-09 15:07 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-10 00:49 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-10 00:20 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-10 12:08 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-10 16:23 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-10 12:00 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 04:28 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-10 14:34 +0100
Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-10 14:33 +0000
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-10 16:12 +0100
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-11 00:18 +0200
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 00:10 +0100
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 17:41 -0700
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-11 02:45 +0000
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-11 10:14 +0200
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 12:32 +0100
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-11 14:50 +0300
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 12:56 +0100
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-11 15:12 +0300
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-11 15:12 +0200
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 15:55 +0100
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-11 15:02 +0200
Re: Endless complaints Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-11 10:03 -0700
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 12:26 -0700
Re: Endless complaints [was Re: do { quit; } else { }] Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 15:27 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 15:23 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 00:49 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 17:59 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-11 14:26 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-11 16:11 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-11 17:22 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 20:46 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 14:10 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-13 20:45 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-11 19:05 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-12 16:37 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 13:25 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-13 11:40 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-13 20:17 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 17:51 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-13 22:23 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-14 11:07 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-14 15:03 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-14 23:17 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-14 11:22 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-13 18:15 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 11:20 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-05 16:12 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-05 16:36 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-05 17:01 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-10 16:51 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-10 18:31 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-10 19:14 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-10 19:36 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-10 19:29 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 00:02 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-10 18:52 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 20:51 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-10 22:55 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 23:00 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 12:14 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-04 22:01 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 21:20 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 21:22 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 21:24 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-10 20:11 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-11 10:07 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 16:25 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-09 15:38 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 16:42 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-09 17:43 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-13 19:34 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-04-09 07:15 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 13:51 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 11:42 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 13:04 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 14:06 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-11 12:27 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 13:11 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 14:11 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 13:16 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 14:24 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-09 11:51 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 14:36 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-09 14:13 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 16:00 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-09 16:37 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-10 20:40 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-11 12:20 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-11 17:30 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-09 12:58 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 14:23 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-09 12:50 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 14:44 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-10 11:55 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-10 14:46 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-10 15:41 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-10 21:05 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-10 20:27 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-10 20:57 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-11 11:17 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 12:51 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-11 16:25 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 15:50 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-11 17:24 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 17:56 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-11 20:29 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 13:58 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-11 22:24 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 14:36 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-12 00:13 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 16:59 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-12 02:27 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 18:53 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-12 02:43 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-12 12:50 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-12 12:57 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-12 14:33 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-13 04:53 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-12 15:43 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-12 17:52 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-12 17:40 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-13 00:09 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-13 21:40 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-13 20:08 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-14 00:30 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-13 21:07 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 18:33 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-13 22:57 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 20:26 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 14:58 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 21:58 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 18:22 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 14:52 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-13 20:50 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-12 19:17 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-12 09:59 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-12 15:15 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-12 06:33 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-12 12:00 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-13 04:27 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-13 12:33 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-13 12:36 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-13 14:54 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-13 17:48 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-14 05:59 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-14 14:11 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-13 14:58 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-13 14:34 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-13 17:39 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-14 06:23 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-14 11:16 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2025-04-14 12:51 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-14 12:12 +0100
Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-14 14:18 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-14 15:33 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-14 16:22 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-15 09:17 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 11:30 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-15 15:34 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-15 13:51 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-04 07:40 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-04 07:31 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-04 18:08 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-05 10:42 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-10 06:43 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-05-10 15:56 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-10 17:48 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-05-11 08:20 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-10 14:29 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-05-11 08:21 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-11 12:02 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-05-11 15:30 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-11 16:29 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-11 18:49 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-11 14:41 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-11 17:43 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-11 15:06 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-11 18:30 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-11 18:15 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-11 19:09 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-12 00:16 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 02:23 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-12 07:19 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-12 15:34 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-12 22:42 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 07:31 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-14 21:12 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-13 09:30 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-13 22:28 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 13:31 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-14 20:44 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 21:45 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-12 17:24 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-12 00:07 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-12 00:43 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 02:27 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-12 17:18 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-28 09:54 -0800
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-28 16:42 -0800
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-31 07:03 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-31 03:53 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-31 18:26 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-01-31 18:33 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-01-31 21:02 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-12 19:53 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-12 23:03 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-12 19:04 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-12 17:08 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 13:38 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-13 12:41 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-13 23:16 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 14:35 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-13 15:10 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 15:41 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-13 18:38 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 19:37 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-13 23:54 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-13 21:19 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-13 21:12 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 22:38 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-03-01 21:55 -0800
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-03-01 23:37 -0800
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-14 03:35 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 21:54 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-14 06:31 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-06-10 06:01 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-14 12:24 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-06-14 13:57 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-06-14 22:27 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-06-15 09:32 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-14 13:00 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-14 13:20 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-05-14 23:20 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-15 11:23 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-06 13:55 -0800
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-11 17:59 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-05-12 10:11 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-12 17:09 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-11 01:09 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-11 17:30 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-05-12 16:18 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-14 11:09 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-13 15:57 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-04 13:52 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-15 13:19 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 18:17 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-15 19:07 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 21:46 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-16 01:41 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-15 22:37 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-16 03:30 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-15 20:50 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-16 18:11 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-16 18:43 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-16 20:05 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-02-03 03:47 -0800
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-02-03 04:21 -0800
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-02-04 23:40 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2026-02-05 08:10 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-02-05 11:30 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2026-02-05 15:21 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-16 14:12 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-16 07:35 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-16 12:32 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-16 15:08 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-16 14:23 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-04 21:32 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-16 15:31 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-18 15:01 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-18 15:34 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Alexis <flexibeast@gmail.com> - 2025-04-19 11:01 +1000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-19 09:20 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-16 14:21 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-18 15:06 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-16 10:47 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-16 16:14 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-16 18:18 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-16 12:28 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 13:03 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-16 23:14 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 17:26 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-17 02:26 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 20:14 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-18 15:37 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-18 15:19 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-18 16:58 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-18 18:27 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-19 09:09 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-17 00:59 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-17 02:09 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-16 21:43 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-16 23:42 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-16 23:49 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-17 01:48 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 19:18 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-17 12:16 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-17 14:36 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-17 11:47 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-17 20:18 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-17 12:55 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-17 21:44 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-17 15:32 -0700
Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-04-17 21:21 +0000
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2025-04-17 22:29 +0000
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-04-18 13:58 +0000
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2025-04-18 18:33 +0000
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-18 20:10 +0100
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-18 16:07 +0100
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-18 16:52 +0000
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-24 22:43 +0200
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-25 07:50 +0200
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-04-25 07:04 +0100
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-25 10:38 +0200
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-25 10:42 +0200
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-18 15:24 +0000
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2025-04-18 15:48 +0000
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-18 16:57 +0100
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-18 18:46 +0200
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-18 18:40 +0100
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-19 08:36 +0200
Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-18 17:49 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-17 02:19 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 17:47 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-18 14:41 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-16 14:09 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-16 17:37 +0300
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
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-16 15:45 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-16 15:44 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-16 13:18 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-15 19:55 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-16 07:19 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-16 07:44 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-16 12:01 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-18 16:40 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-18 14:10 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-18 23:27 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-19 08:27 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-19 11:26 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-19 13:32 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-19 14:05 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-19 12:54 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-19 20:57 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-19 14:07 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-20 00:34 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 12:18 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-20 12:43 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 18:46 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-20 20:51 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-20 15:36 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-21 00:29 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-20 19:08 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-21 12:26 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-21 03:16 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-21 12:57 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-21 18:43 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-21 20:57 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-21 20:25 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 00:33 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-21 23:46 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-22 10:32 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-22 01:06 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 02:24 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-22 10:47 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 11:28 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-22 19:19 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-22 19:26 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 21:03 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-22 21:40 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-23 00:43 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-22 16:59 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-23 00:01 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-23 11:15 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-23 10:58 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-23 14:50 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-23 16:00 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-23 17:39 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-24 07:41 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-24 09:31 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-23 17:31 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-23 18:43 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-23 18:43 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-23 21:49 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-24 15:12 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-24 15:28 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-24 17:21 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-24 18:30 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-24 17:59 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-25 15:19 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-24 07:40 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-24 09:26 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-24 10:52 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-24 12:44 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-24 14:31 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-24 14:25 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-24 14:51 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-24 15:32 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-24 18:49 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-24 18:03 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-24 18:26 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-04-25 08:53 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-04 22:17 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-09-26 02:00 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-25 02:56 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-25 13:48 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-25 17:51 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-25 17:48 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-24 18:51 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-23 09:01 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-22 09:32 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-22 09:14 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-20 15:07 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-04-20 23:19 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-21 13:51 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-21 16:36 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-21 21:06 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-21 23:54 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-21 16:12 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 01:26 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-21 18:22 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 11:43 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-22 14:15 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 23:52 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-22 16:22 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-22 10:40 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-21 18:25 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-22 10:19 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 12:39 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 02:21 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-22 09:54 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-22 20:16 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 19:54 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-22 21:11 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 20:43 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-23 17:41 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-19 16:28 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-19 19:59 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-19 20:15 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 12:41 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 12:34 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-19 14:35 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-19 16:24 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-19 16:36 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-19 15:22 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-19 20:55 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-19 13:55 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-20 00:52 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 13:00 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-20 14:53 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-20 17:34 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-20 16:25 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-20 19:01 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 18:10 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 18:07 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 17:55 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-20 17:28 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-21 03:07 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-21 13:46 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-21 14:21 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-22 00:14 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-22 00:19 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-21 15:39 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-22 10:12 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-21 22:16 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 01:12 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-22 03:31 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 12:33 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-22 14:36 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-22 16:10 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-22 17:27 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-22 17:48 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-22 14:31 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-22 22:39 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-22 17:53 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-22 15:02 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-23 19:05 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-23 18:52 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-23 13:22 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-21 07:34 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-21 13:26 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-21 13:39 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-04 21:35 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-19 15:15 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-19 20:36 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-19 19:43 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 11:27 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 11:25 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-20 11:25 -0400
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-20 16:53 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-16 12:29 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-16 12:38 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-16 19:15 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 15:28 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 14:44 -0700
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-15 06:14 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-15 06:57 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-15 09:25 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-16 11:45 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-18 16:57 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-20 15:00 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-20 17:45 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-24 22:35 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-25 07:46 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-25 10:29 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-25 14:22 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 11:15 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-15 15:25 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 13:55 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-15 13:33 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 15:30 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-15 18:22 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 17:42 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-15 20:14 +0300
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-16 07:39 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-15 20:37 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-16 12:09 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-16 12:04 +0200
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-15 14:13 +0000
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 15:41 +0100
Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-04-16 11:58 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 15:07 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-14 23:12 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 01:35 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-15 14:05 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 15:44 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-15 15:31 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-15 17:38 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-12 14:39 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-12 14:21 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-12 15:52 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-12 16:32 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-13 16:26 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-13 14:48 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-12 15:01 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-11 18:24 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-13 21:03 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-13 20:56 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 11:24 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-12 01:30 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 02:35 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-27 09:17 -0800
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-27 15:28 -0800
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 11:15 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-13 20:57 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-13 20:53 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-13 22:14 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-13 21:03 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-14 06:43 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-14 09:00 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-15 09:40 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-15 09:18 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-15 10:39 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-14 08:44 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2025-04-11 19:45 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-11 16:00 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-04-15 15:44 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-10 20:21 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 15:43 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-11 02:12 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 20:44 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-11 11:33 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-10 15:14 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-10 16:25 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-04-10 21:42 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-11 11:35 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 15:49 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-10 20:57 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-11 14:37 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-04-11 11:16 -0400
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-11 18:31 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 11:10 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-11 14:02 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-11 15:24 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-11 18:46 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 12:01 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-08 10:47 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2025-04-09 09:00 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-04-09 11:36 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-09 14:54 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-08 10:59 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-09 11:51 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-09 12:56 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-06 16:26 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-06 16:02 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-04-06 16:53 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 19:45 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 15:23 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 15:35 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-04-07 03:56 +0042
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-07 09:16 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-04-06 14:18 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-06 17:08 +0200
Beyond the pale... (Was: do { quit; } else { }) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-04-07 16:08 +0000
Re: Beyond the pale... (Was: do { quit; } else { }) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-07 18:39 +0200
Re: Beyond the pale... (Was: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-07 23:30 +0000
Re: Beyond the pale... (Was: do { quit; } else { }) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-08 12:39 +0300
Re: Beyond the pale... (Was: do { quit; } else { }) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-04-08 16:57 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-07 08:06 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-06 08:14 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-06 23:48 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-07 09:21 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-04-07 04:50 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 16:40 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-09 15:01 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 17:04 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-09 16:26 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-09 17:54 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-09 17:26 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-05-09 17:07 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-09 19:11 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 20:21 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-09 19:35 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 19:09 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-09 19:29 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-13 14:55 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 14:35 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-14 11:22 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-14 10:34 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-09 19:09 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 19:11 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-09 19:18 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-13 14:54 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-13 15:36 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-14 11:19 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-12 11:44 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-13 15:13 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 14:46 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-13 16:07 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 14:05 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-14 11:31 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-14 10:37 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-09 15:31 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 19:07 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Wuns Haerst <Wuns.Haerst@wurstfabrik.at> - 2025-05-07 06:56 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-07 06:52 +0100
Re: do { quit; } else { } Wuns Haerst <Wuns.Haerst@wurstfabrik.at> - 2025-05-07 15:46 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-05-08 06:04 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-08 14:24 -0700
Re: do { quit; } else { } Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2026-01-27 09:15 -0800
Re: do { quit; } else { } Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2026-01-27 15:36 -0800
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-05-09 11:09 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-04-06 02:58 +0000
Re: do { quit; } else { } David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-04-06 12:05 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-04-18 10:30 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-10-08 14:14 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-10-08 09:59 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-10-08 16:05 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-10-08 17:08 +0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-10-08 16:35 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-10-15 16:04 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-10-08 16:06 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-10-15 23:04 +0200
Re: do { quit; } else { } Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2025-10-15 20:41 -0300
Re: do { quit; } else { } Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-10-16 00:43 +0100
Page 19 of 35 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 … 35 Next page →
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-18 17:49 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })) |
| Message-ID | <vttsac$3ao6b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392662 |
On 18.04.2025 00:29, Lew Pitcher wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 21:21:54 +0000, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>
>> In article <87fri68w2c.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>,
>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>> IMHO it doesn't much matter what the value is after the loop ends, but
>>> any standard for a language with such a feature should either restrict
>>> the scope to the loop, specify the value the variable has after the
>>> loop, or explicitly say that it's unspecified or undefined.
>>
>> I frequently check the value of the loop variable after the loop has ended
>> in order to determine if the loop ended "normally" or prematurely via
>> "break". E.g.,
>>
>> for (i=0; i<10; i++) { code that might or might not break }
>> if (i == 10) puts("It ended normally");
>
> It's also a handy idiom for a compact list search loop
> where the terminating condition is either end of the list, or
> a matched entry.
> If the cursor isn't the end-of-list marker, then it references
> the matched entry;
>
> for (n = NUM_ENTRIES; (n >= 0) && (node[n] != key); --n) continue;
> if (n != -1) printf("Found key at entry %d\n",n);
In "C" (and with low-level "C" arrays starting at 0) I find iterations
always a bit crude _if started from the end_. Anyway.
I'd like to remind another standard method (just for good measure)...
Adding the searched element at the end of the array - where you have
to _take provisions that there is storage_, of course - like
node[N] = key;
for (i=0; node[i] != key; i++)
// ...whatever...
if (i==N) // ...not found...
else // ...found at i...
with the nice property to have just one test to perform in the loop.
Janis
>
>> I've applied this method in many C and (vaguely) C-like languages.
>> Any language with a "for" type loop, where you can check the value after
>> the loop can avail themselves of this method.
>
> I concur :-)
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-17 02:19 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <vtpkuq$3duft$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392636 |
On 17/04/2025 00:49, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-04-16, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> On 16/04/2025 22:43, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-04-16, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>>> On 16/04/2025 06:35, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >>>>> On 15.04.2025 22:46, bart wrote: >>>>>> On 15/04/2025 20:07, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> Real for loops _are_ a three-way construct. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>>> Any step other than 1 is unusual. [...] >>>> >>>>> Nonsense. Arithmetic loop steps other than one are noting unusual >>>>> and been supported by programming languages (and also been used) >>>>> since decades in programming. >>>> >>>> So what are you claiming, that the majority of loops in any given >>>> program will have steps other than +1 or -1? >>> >>> Hey Bart, how would you handle a loop like >>> >>> do x = m to n ... >>> >>> where m and n are not known until run time, and may be the >>> extreme values of the type? Like C's INT_MIN and INT_MAX, respectively, >>> where x is of type int. >>> >>> Because in this loop, x takes on every possible value of the type, >>> we cannot have a loop guard which prevents entry of the loop body >>> based on solely the value of x. >> >> I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. Is it a loop like this, here >> in my language: >> >> int n:=0 >> >> for i in i32.bounds do # ie. i32.min .. i32.max >> ++n >> od >> >> println n >> >> This works fine; after a second or so it displays 4294967296. >> >> However, this languages evaluates using 64 bits. Perhaps this loop may >> demonstrate the issues better: >> >> for i in i64.bounds do >> >> However, I would estimate it would take 190 years to finish. > > Sure, but you could have a loop that goes over the last n > values of the range of i64, for a reasonably small n. > >> I assume you're thinking of C which uses i32 and where comparisons near >> the extreme values of the type are problemetical. Or this line in my > > Comparisons aren't; gratuitous increments or displacements are. OK, I've had a look in detail at the code I generate for for-loops. I believe it can be made to work with a test for equality instead of less-than-equal, with the increment done only if unequal. But it's slightly more elaborate. It works because, for variable limits for example, it already does a one-time "<=" check before it enters the loop. But there is a restriction: the loop index can't be changed by user code within the loop. (Otherwise it can have a value beyond the limit, and won't detect that.) As it happens, my loop indices are usually immutable, but not always. So the revised loop handling can be limited to the case when the index /is/ immutable. However, I'm not going to implement that. It's enough to know it is a possibility. This particular issue has not bothered me over 43 years of using <= compares, even when my ints were only 16 bits; I doubt it will bite any time soon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-16 17:47 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <87mscfzk96.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #392633 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 16/04/2025 22:43, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
[...]
>> Hey Bart, how would you handle a loop like
>> do x = m to n ...
>> where m and n are not known until run time, and may be the
>> extreme values of the type? Like C's INT_MIN and INT_MAX, respectively,
>> where x is of type int.
>> Because in this loop, x takes on every possible value of the type,
>> we cannot have a loop guard which prevents entry of the loop body
>> based on solely the value of x.
>
> I'm not exactly sure what you are asking.
[...]
> However, this languages evaluates using 64 bits. Perhaps this loop may
> demonstrate the issues better:
>
> for i in i64.bounds do
>
> However, I would estimate it would take 190 years to finish.
>
> I assume you're thinking of C which uses i32 and where comparisons
> near the extreme values of the type are problemetical.
[...]
"C which uses i32"?
I'm going to guess that what you meant by that is that many, perhaps most,
C implementations have 32-bit int. Of course the language doesn't
specify that, and of course you can use expressions of any type you like
in a C for loop.
> my language:
>
> for i in i64.max-10 .. i64.max do println i
>
> which doesn't stop (u64 is OK however). That doesn't worry me too
> much, I can just add a Note to the language spec warning of UB when a
> for-loop bound is at the limits of the type. Where all sorts of other
> stuff can happen because of how values wrap.
And C's for loop has the same issue, though of course you don't need to
resort to 64-bit arithmetic to demonstrate it:
for (int i = INT_MAX-10; i <= INT_MAX; i++) {
printf("%d\n", i);
}
This will cause a signed integer overflow and undefined behavior
when i has reached INT_MAX, and the comparison `i <= INT_MAX`
might even be optimized away.
(Ada's for loop, for example, doesn't have this issue. The compiler is
required to generate whatever code is necessary to make the equivalent
loop iterate exactly 11 times. Ada's for loops are not nearly as
flexible as C's.)
[...]
> You're trying too hard. I don't think the language needs to bother
> providing solutions, it just needs to specify the limitations.
So this issue (overflowing at the top end of the range) *isn't*
something you dislike about C-style for loops. Good to know.
> If the user needs to know about, and remember in the rare instance it
> comes up, dedicated language features, then the user can also come up
> with their own workarounds as I showed. Eg. in C:
>
> long long int i, a=INT_MIN, b=INT_MAX, n=0;
>
> for (i = a; i<=b; ++i) ++n;
>
> printf("%lld\n", n);
That works only if long long int is wider than int, something the
language does not guarantee.
If hitting the top end of the range is a concern, I think a better
workaround is to do a test and break at the bottom of the loop.
That has the advantage of working even if no wider type is available.
C-style for loops aren't *quite* flexible enough to express that
directly, at least not cleanly.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-18 14:41 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <vtth94$31ec8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392605 |
On 16.04.2025 13:32, bart wrote: > On 16/04/2025 06:35, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >> On 15.04.2025 22:46, bart wrote: >>> On 15/04/2025 20:07, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>>> [...] >>>> Real for loops _are_ a three-way construct. >>>> [...] >>> >>> Any step other than 1 is unusual. [...] > >> Nonsense. Arithmetic loop steps other than one are noting unusual >> and been supported by programming languages (and also been used) >> since decades in programming. > > So what are you claiming, that the majority of loops in any given > program will have steps other than +1 or -1? No. I am saying that there's many ways to define and use 'for' loops, and specifically "C" allows (by using an inherent primitive syntax) to formulate many useful constructs that are also used regularly in those languages that support such constructs. As an implied consequence of that you may derive that if you use only languages that don't support such constructs you must emulate them in other ways in those languages. (This will naturally not be directly countable in your preferred statistics.) Also if you are using a language with more flexible 'for' loops but you are not using that flexibility - because you haven't learned it, you just don't grok it, or deliberately abstain from it because, say, of some dogma that 'for' loops are only "real" 'for' loops if you use them just in sequential traversing of integers with increments of 1 - that you will also not see them. > [...] > > But never, mind, C's for-loop will still be the most superior to > everybody here. (I cannot speak for "everybody" as you seem to prefer.) My own opinion I already stated more than one time; it boils down to: I dislike "C" syntax in general. I like the flexibility of "C". The latter is part of the reason why I use that syntactically "inferior" language in some private programming. > I'd have an easier time arguing about religion! (But you are arguing all the time in a religious manner already.) Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-16 14:09 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <ISOLP.1774061$FVcd.178862@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #392572 |
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;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-16 17:37 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <20250416173721.000030b5@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #392609 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-06 05:59 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <86ecx13nfb.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #392614 |
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)?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-07 12:32 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <20250507123232.00005f8b@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #393206 |
On Tue, 06 May 2025 05:59:20 -0700 Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote: > 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: > >>> > >>>> > >>> 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)? First and foremost it was tongue-in-cheek reaction to the article that Scott posted 2-3 minutes after the article that I was reacting to. At the next level, it is true that if I do detailed code review (which I almost never do) I would indeed reject this code. The first and sufficient reason is that the code looks superficially similar to very common idiom, but significantly differs in behavior. An additional reason is that post-increment operator is generally harder to reason about than almost any other C operator, esp. so when used as part of comparison, so, IMHO, readable code should limit use of post-increment to very common idioms (or altogether avoid it). The third reason, related to the first two is that behavior of this loop is way too surprising.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-07 14:54 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <vvfl5i$11993$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #393224 |
On 07.05.2025 11:32, Michael S wrote: > On Tue, 06 May 2025 05:59:20 -0700 > Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote: > >> 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: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> 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)? > > First and foremost it was tongue-in-cheek reaction to the article that > Scott posted 2-3 minutes after the article that I was reacting to. > > At the next level, it is true that if I do detailed code review (which > I almost never do) I would indeed reject this code. The first > and sufficient reason is that the code looks superficially similar to > very common idiom, but significantly differs in behavior. An additional > reason is that post-increment operator is generally harder to reason > about than almost any other C operator, esp. so when used as part of > comparison, so, IMHO, readable code should limit use of post-increment > to very common idioms (or altogether avoid it). The third reason, > related to the first two is that behavior of this loop is way too > surprising. What I derive here is that [formal] reviewers should have some formal set of rules that have _sensible rationales_ attached. (This is what we've done in one company, at least.) The explanations above sound more like some individual/subjective feeling; that of course may have its validity (but maybe as well it has not). Coding standards, BTW, should thus also be subject to review, and its reviewers carefully selected. You can inflict harm to the process if you get such standard wrong and install opinion-based style-sheriffs. My own subjective feelings about the code above with the two loops is also not positive. But I'd neither consider the post-increment as a problem (comprehension or else), nor do I find the behavior surprising. Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-07 13:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <CyJSP.467$lbbb.343@fx18.iad> |
| In reply to | #393224 |
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: >On Tue, 06 May 2025 05:59:20 -0700 >Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote: > >> 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: >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> 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)? > >First and foremost it was tongue-in-cheek reaction to the article that >Scott posted 2-3 minutes after the article that I was reacting to. My reply, was of course, also tongue-in-cheek as a response to Bart's silly token counting. I've never found a reason to code a for loop like that. > >At the next level, it is true that if I do detailed code review (which >I almost never do) I would indeed reject this code. The first >and sufficient reason is that the code looks superficially similar to >very common idiom, but significantly differs in behavior. An additional >reason is that post-increment operator is generally harder to reason >about than almost any other C operator, esp. so when used as part of >comparison, so, IMHO, readable code should limit use of post-increment >to very common idioms (or altogether avoid it). The third reason, >related to the first two is that behavior of this loop is way too >surprising. An overreaction, perhaps. I'm not sure what I'd do if I saw it during code review - it would depend on the surrounding context I suspect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-11 23:48 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <86wmamxr2d.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #393224 |
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
> On Tue, 06 May 2025 05:59:20 -0700
> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>
>> 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:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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)?
>
> First and foremost it was tongue-in-cheek reaction to the article
> that Scott posted 2-3 minutes after the article that I was
> reacting to.
I took the posting at face value.
> At the next level, it is true that if I do detailed code review
> (which I almost never do) I would indeed reject this code. The
> first and sufficient reason is that the code looks superficially
> similar to very common idiom, but significantly differs in
> behavior. An additional reason is that post-increment operator is
> generally harder to reason about than almost any other C operator,
> esp. so when used as part of comparison, so, IMHO, readable code
> should limit use of post-increment to very common idioms (or
> altogether avoid it). The third reason, related to the first two
> is that behavior of this loop is way too surprising.
I see your comments as saying a few different things. My intention
below is to give fair paraphrases; please voice an objection if you
feel that this was not done.
One: the given code syntactically resembles a common code pattern
but has quite different semantics.
Two: postfix ++ is harder to understand than other operators.
Three: the combination of postfix ++ and a comparison operator
is even harder to understand than its simpler uses.
Four: postfix ++ should never be used except in familiar and
commonly used patterns.
Five: the effect of the for() controlling statement is not what
most readers (selected from experienced developers) would expect.
Would you say that these statements above give a fair restatement
of your comments? Or have I missed or misrepresented something?
Taking the above points as fair restatements, here are my reactions.
Point one is never a reason to reject a given code fragment. If a
piece of code intends to express a particular semantics, but happens
to resemble a more common pattern that has different semantics, that
by itself is never reason to reject the code under consideration.
It's reasonable to say that a comment be given to alert a reader to
an unobvious difference, but not to reject the code outright.
Point two is true at least insofar as postfix ++ is more complicated
than simple arithmetic operators like + and *. The same could be
said of all operators with side-effects. Do you think postfix ++ is
more complicated than postfix --? Both postfix ++ and postfix --
appear in common and familiar patterns. I don't think the given
code fragment should be rejected solely for using a postfix ++.
Point three is certainly true, at least in comparison with using
postfix ++ by itself. But I don't see why you think using the
result with a comparison operator is more complicated than other
compound uses. Consider these code fragments, not too difficult
I think for most developers:
*lines++ = next_input_line();
while( i-- > 0 ) ...
I don't see either of these examples as being too different than the
condition 'i++ <= 10'. Is your only reason for rejecting the given
code is that you find it unfamiliar?
Point four seems to say explicitly what came up implicitly in point
three. I think a lot of people follow a similar rule, one not
necessarily restricted to postfix ++ or other less-used patterns.
As a guideline I think that's okay; as an inviolate rule I think
it's wrong. Developers should always write code in a way that they
feel best expresses their intentions, whether that way is an old
way or a new way. A second consideration is that, if code is only
ever written in old familiar ways, then newer and better ways will
never be discovered. Taking a conservative stance is fine most of
the time; always vetoing a new form just because it is new is
overdoing it.
Point five seems like simply another way of saying, in a more
generic way, the view raised in point four, or maybe points four
and one in combination. Same response as was given above.
I might summarize my reactions as follows. I am philosophically
opposed to the idea that code should only ever be written in common
forms or that it should be "dumbed down" for less sophisticated
developers. An advantage of C is that it is small enough so any
experienced developer can understand all of it. If someone isn't
capable of handling basic expressions like those under discussion
here then they just shouldn't be programming.
Incidentally, I might agree with you in the sense that I think
the semantics for the code being considered can be effected using
code that is either more familiar, or easier to follow than how
it was written above, or both. If that is your actual underlying
objection then I think we are pretty much on the same page. My
response above though gives reactions to what was written, not
what I imagined you were thinking.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-16 15:45 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <vtofr2$2db8v$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392609 |
On 16/04/2025 15:09, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> On 15/04/2025 20:07, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>> On 15/04/2025 14:19, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thats's fine. But it means a real 'for' loop doesn't exist in C; you
>>>> have to emulate it using that 3-way construct, which is naff, and also
>>>> error prone.
>>>
>>> Real for loops _are_ a three-way construct.
>>>
>>> 135 FOR I=1 TO 10 STEP 2 [BASIC]
>>>
>>> for(i = 1; i < 11; i += 2) [C/C++]
>>>
>>> do 1 = 1, 10, 2 [FORTRAN]
>>
>> Any step other than 1 is unusual. So Basic and Fortran would typically be:
>>
>> for i = 1 to 10 # 6 tokens; Basic
>> do i = 1, 10 # 6 tokens; Fortran
>> for i = 1, 10 # 6 tokens; Lua
>> for i to 10 do # 5 tokens; Mine (using default start)
>> to 10 do # 3 tokens; Mine (when index is not needed)
>>
>> Let's look at that C again:
>>
>> for (int i = 1; i < 11; i += 1) # 15 tokens; C
>>
>
>
> for(i = 1; i++ <= 10;)
So real for loops are a /two-way/ construct?
In any case, that doesn't do the same as the others, as it iterates over
2 to 11 inclusive, not 1 to 10.
You might try 'for (i=0; i++ < 10);)', but there's still a problem: you
have to offset the start value by -1. This mean that to iterate over the
0..9 bounds of 10-element array, you'd have to write:
for (i = -1; i++ < 9;)
It becomes exclusive at the lower end, and top becomes inclusive despite
using '<' instead of '<='.
The real problem is that the index is incremented in the wrong place.
Now look again at that Fortran:
do i = 1, 10 # iterate over 1..10 inclusive
do i = 0, 9 # iterate over 0..9 inclusive
It now looks even better: gorgeously simple, clean, intuitive - and
still shorter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-16 15:44 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <LfQLP.313529$j2D.82450@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #392615 |
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >On 16/04/2025 15:09, 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;) > >So real for loops are a /two-way/ construct? > >In any case, that doesn't do the same as the others, as it iterates over >2 to 11 inclusive, not 1 to 10. The point was to execute a loop 10 times, which this does.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-16 13:18 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <874iyn273e.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #392619 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>On 16/04/2025 15:09, Scott Lurndal wrote:
[...]
>>> for(i = 1; i++ <= 10;)
>>
>>So real for loops are a /two-way/ construct?
>>
>>In any case, that doesn't do the same as the others, as it iterates over
>>2 to 11 inclusive, not 1 to 10.
>
> The point was to execute a loop 10 times, which this does.
You didn't say that was the point. A very common requirement is to have
a meaningful value for i inside the loop. `for (i = 1; i <= 10;i ++)`
does that, and is far more idiomatic.
Your example does demonstrate the flexibility of a C-style for loop,
but it's not good code.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-15 19:55 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <20250415123300.113@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #392562 |
On 2025-04-15, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 15/04/2025 14:19, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> Common Lisp uses "for" to indicate several kinds of variable >> stepping clauses inside the loop syntax, some of which are: >> >> [4]> (loop for x in '(a b c) >> for y = 1 then (1+ y) >> for z = (* y 10) >> with w = (* y 10) >> collect (list x y z w)) >> ((A 1 10 10) (B 2 20 10) (C 3 30 10)) > > > I've looked in the past at CLisp and its loops. My view is that the > number of possibilities it provides is over the job. It's like somebody > was tasked with thinking up as many as possible, and making them all > available. This is easy to because loop is a macro; you can just write code that you can distribute as a Lisp source file. Early implementatons of loop were distributed that way. It's happened that some applications would "bring their own loop" to work around bugs in a Lisp vendor's. Inspired by the Lisp loop, I made something like it for Awk using the GNU C Preprocessor. This was possible largely in part due to the way the for ( ... ; ... ; ...) header syntax is. The C-style loop gives us a target construct into which we can compile everything that we need from all the multiple clauses. The manual page for the macro is here: https://www.kylheku.com/cgit/cppawk/tree/cppawk-iter.1 It is part of the cppawk project: https://www.kylheku.com/cgit/cppawk/about/ There are regression/coverage test cases for it here: https://www.kylheku.com/cgit/cppawk/tree/testcases-iter -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-16 07:19 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <vtnekn$1fogv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392537 |
On 15.04.2025 12:30, bart wrote: > On 15/04/2025 08:17, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >> On 14.04.2025 17:22, bart wrote: >>> On 14/04/2025 13:18, Janis Papanagnou wrote: [...] >>> >>>> The "C" syntax has actually a flexibility that is very valuable. >>> >>> The flexibility is the problem, because you have to specify the loop in >>> such excruciating detail. It is easy to make a mistake which results in >>> still legal code. And you now have to analyse each loop to see what kind >>> of loop it is: >> >> Well, our opinions obviously differ. I just give you two examples >> (and there's many variants of these) of not uncommon 'for' usages... >> >> for (c=0; bitstr; c++) >> bitstr &= bitstr-1; > > I can't grok that. It's a simple example of a loop where the condition is not depending on the counting loop variable. - What is it that you don't understand here? - That's one example where the "C" loop design decision allows to express yet more sensible functionality than only simple loops with counts of 1. (In case you don't understand the actual operation - which is not the point of this example - inspect, e.g., K&R and the footnotes there.) If all you know (and can handle) is a simple counted loop then every extension may appear to you being strange. > [ meaningless while/for stuff snipped ] (One of your fundamental problems with "C" seems to be to understand the 'for' keyword meaning only counted loops with one variable and a simple +1 increment. - I can't help you here.) > >>> [...] >>> >>> Suppose you see 'i <= N' as the condition; is that '<=' intentional, or >>> is it a typo for '<'? It's impossible to tell. >> >> (This is nonsense.) > > You can't just say that without explanation. WHY it it nonsense? It's nonsense because all programmers use the comparison operations that are necessary; I don't know about you but if I do a primitive arithmetic loop I start with 0 and compare < against N (the amount of iterations) or start with 1 and compare <= against N; if that's what is intended. I've written code where the logic required comparisons of i < N-1 and also i <= N . So what? - Should I not do that because you are getting confused when inspecting my code? It's nonsense on so many levels. If you have doubts ask the programmer or verify the logic. If you are the programmer add a comment to make the intention clear. If you are a project lead define coding standards, coach your team, invent QA measures, do code reviews. > Take this: > > for (i=0 i<=N; ++i) > > Most such loops iterate over 0..N-1 inclusive, so would need "<". (One of your fundamental problems with "C" seems to be to understand the 'for' keyword meaning only counted loops with one variable and a simple +1 increment. - I can't help you here.) If you have some conditioning that "most" is the programming world then I suggest to #define MOST_LOOP for (i=0 i<=N; ++i) so that you don't make error and don't get confused respectively. > So, in > your opinion, is that <= a typo, or is the intention to iterate over > 0..N inclusive (so N+1 iterations)? It depends on the context. Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-16 07:44 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <vtng3f$1gobs$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392593 |
On 16.04.2025 07:19, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > > If you have some conditioning that "most" is the programming world > then I suggest to #define MOST_LOOP for (i=0 i<=N; ++i) LOL! - Should have been #define MOST_LOOP for (i=0 i<N; ++i) off-by-one error by copy/paste-programming! - All points proven. Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-16 12:01 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <vto2mb$20c4n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392593 |
On 16/04/2025 06:19, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 15.04.2025 12:30, bart wrote: > (One of your fundamental problems with "C" seems to be to understand > the 'for' keyword meaning only counted loops with one variable and a > simple +1 increment. - I can't help you here.) And your problem seems to the opposite: being unable to understand that for-loop (perhaps spelled 'do') can be a specialised feature to iterate one or more variables over a predetermined range or set of values. Unlike C's for, which is just a gimmick where you bundle three potentially unrelated expressions and hope for the best. Everyone here is defending the latter to the death. Why? Apparently the ONLY argument is 'flexibility'. Having to writing a simple iteration in such a convoluted and unchecked manner is much better because - you can use the same syntax to iterate over a list! > I've written code where the logic required comparisons of i < N-1 > and also i <= N . So what? - Should I not do that because you are > getting confused when inspecting my code? This is worrying. So you have a bunch of code with multiple like this: for (i=0; i<N; ++) for (i=0; i<N; ++) for (i=0; i<=N; ++) for (i=0; i<N; ++) And you notice one has <= while the others have <. But according to you, this is nothing remarkable and raises no flags. Obviously the author intended to iterate one more time there! With language-supported iteration, the comparison operator is not exposed, so the programmer cannot accidentally type the wrong one. (I see I have ++ and not ++i; never mind. It is telling that it took me a minute to notice!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-18 16:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <vtto81$37l6h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392604 |
On 16.04.2025 13:01, bart wrote: > On 16/04/2025 06:19, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >> On 15.04.2025 12:30, bart wrote: > >> (One of your fundamental problems with "C" seems to be to understand >> the 'for' keyword meaning only counted loops with one variable and a >> simple +1 increment. - I can't help you here.) > > And your problem seems to the opposite: being unable to understand that > for-loop (perhaps spelled 'do') can be a specialised feature to iterate > one or more variables over a predetermined range or set of values. Why do you think so? - I've given enough examples where you could have easily seen that I'm able to take advantage for my programming of any loop concept that languages provide, and I've done so, from Pascal's simple forms, over Simula and Algol 68 loops, to "C"/C++ loops and loop algorithms, or Unix Shell's or Awk's loop constructs. But if I'd want to use some flexibility of one language and don't have it available in another language I'll have to work around it. And, vice versa, if I have that flexibility, why not use it. > > Unlike C's for, which is just a gimmick where you bundle three > potentially unrelated expressions and hope for the best. It's nothing to do with hope. (Your religious approach here is not very useful if you want to work as [or become] a serious programmer.) If you are intellectually incapable of managing "C" loops I cannot help you. - But I have sympathy for you, and can feel your pain if you're programming in "C" given what you are repeatedly complaining about. > > Everyone here is defending the latter to the death. Why? Apparently the > ONLY argument is 'flexibility'. Why do you think so? - Flexibility is what "C"'s loop provides; it's one of the strengths of this loop. - Your agenda and opinion on that seems to be different, you certainly cannot see or acknowledge that flexibility and instead try to invalidate that fact repeatedly by red herrings. I see that you're priorities are, as you've shown, for example, how many characters you have to type, or whether you have do..od syntaxes available as part of the language. I cannot believe that you never used any of the possibilities that "C" loops provide us. But okay, it's anyway meaningless what you do. > > Having to writing a simple iteration in such a convoluted and unchecked > manner is much better because - you can use the same syntax to iterate > over a list! I understand that you want a primitive loop being available. - And if that's such a pain that "C" doesn't have it I'd suggest you to switch to another language; for your private stuff you can do what you like, there's no prerequisites or boundary conditions imposed upon you. > >> I've written code where the logic required comparisons of i < N-1 >> and also i <= N . So what? - Should I not do that because you are >> getting confused when inspecting my code? > > > This is worrying. So you have a bunch of code with multiple like this: > > for (i=0; i<N; ++) > for (i=0; i<N; ++) > for (i=0; i<=N; ++) > for (i=0; i<N; ++) No. I have written code as I wrote it - still quoted above - not as you made it up. I haven't said anything else about it. - Only that I have no issues to apply every form as algorithmic demands require it. > > And you notice one has <= while the others have <. But according to you, > this is nothing remarkable and raises no flags. Obviously the author > intended to iterate one more time there! Yes, different contexts require different implementations. (It appears strange to me that your programs look all the same. And, honestly, I cannot believe that; I think you're as usual just making that up.) > > With language-supported iteration, the comparison operator is not > exposed, so the programmer cannot accidentally type the wrong one. Obviously. > > (I see I have ++ and not ++i; never mind. It is telling that it took me > a minute to notice!) Get some glasses? Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-18 14:10 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) |
| Message-ID | <vtu4i5$3hteg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #392604 |
On 16.04.2025 13:01, bart wrote: ... > Unlike C's for, which is just a gimmick where you bundle three > potentially unrelated expressions and hope for the best. If all you can do is "hope for the best", you're doing it wrong. It's your job to ensure that they are not arbitrary unrelated expressions, but correctly related expressions, and that's no different from your responsibility for all of the other expressions that make up your program. If you find that problematic, you shouldn't be programming in any language, but certainly not in C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 19 of 35 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 … 35 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web