Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: the loop control |
| Date | 2011-10-29 22:10 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <20111029175230.259@kylheku.com> (permalink) |
| References | <j8hrok$3cq$1@reader1.panix.com> |
On 2011-10-29, Joe keane <jgk@panix.com> wrote:
> Which is better?
Neither. Firstly, you're neglecting to take advantage of parameters being
local variables. Do you need fool and foob to retain the values
they had on entry into the function?
int fa(int fool, struct foo *foob)
{
while (fool-- > 0) {
/* process object referenced by foob */
foob++;
}
}
> while (--ct >= 0)
Getting into the habit of coding a descending loop this way will bite
you if the loop counter is ever an unsigned type. (Hopefully a compiler will
warn you that the comparison is always true because of the range of the type.)
If you're going to introduce an extra integer index variable anyway, consider
array indexing.
for (ct = 0; ct < fool; ct++) {
... foob[i] ...
}
This way you avoid introducing an extra pointer just to keep your
foob pointer stable.
If this array of struct foo is used frequently in the program,
you might want to encapsulate it better, so you don't have to keep
passing two parameters everywhere just to represent one object.
A null-terminated array is a another possibility. This is like
a null-terminated string, but of course the null element is a pointer.
The argument array passed into main is this way.
int fa(struct foo *foob)
{
for (; *foob != NULL; foob++) {
/* process foob */
}
}
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
the loop control jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-10-29 21:38 +0000
Re: the loop control Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-30 10:48 +1300
Re: the loop control Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-29 22:10 +0000
Re: the loop control jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-10-31 15:21 +0000
Re: the loop control James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-31 11:35 -0400
Re: the loop control jgharston <jgh@arcade.demon.co.uk> - 2011-10-31 10:27 -0700
Re: the loop control Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-10-31 18:36 +0000
Re: the loop control Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-31 13:49 -0500
Re: the loop control Sjouke Burry <s@b> - 2011-10-31 18:49 +0000
Re: the loop control James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-31 15:07 -0400
Re: the loop control Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-10-31 13:56 -0700
Re: the loop control Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-10-31 17:18 +0000
Re: the loop control Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 04:35 -0700
Re: the loop control Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-01 21:44 +0000
Re: the loop control Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 01:16 -0700
Re: the loop control Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-31 19:23 +0000
Re: the loop control jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-11-02 04:47 +0000
Re: the loop control Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-10-31 23:07 +0200
Re: the loop control Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2011-11-01 00:11 +0000
Re: the loop control James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-31 22:01 -0400
Re: the loop control Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-01 02:51 +0000
Re: the loop control James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 07:23 -0400
Re: the loop control Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-11-01 09:51 +0000
Re: the loop control pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-11-01 05:34 -0500
Re: the loop control James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 07:30 -0400
Re: the loop control James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 07:35 -0400
Re: the loop control Hans Vlems <hvlems@freenet.de> - 2011-11-11 00:38 -0800
Re: the loop control jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-11-02 03:36 +0000
Re: the loop control Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 17:09 +1300
Re: the loop control Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-02 03:56 -0700
Re: the loop control Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-31 21:38 +0000
Re: the loop control Acid Washed China Blue Jeans <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-29 19:31 -0700
Re: the loop control Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-10-29 23:11 -0600
Re: the loop control "Philip Lantz" <prl@canterey.us> - 2011-10-29 22:47 -0700
Re: the loop control jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-10-31 16:36 +0000
Re: the loop control Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-31 19:30 +0000
Re: the loop control blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-10-31 12:38 -0700
Re: the loop control James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-31 15:51 -0400
Re: the loop control blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-10-31 13:06 -0700
Re: the loop control Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-10-31 14:17 -0700
Re: the loop control Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-01 21:44 +0000
Re: the loop control Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-10-31 23:30 +0200
Re: the loop control jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-11-03 21:29 +0000
Re: the loop control James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-03 18:00 -0400
Re: the loop control Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-04 00:43 +0000
Re: the loop control jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-11-11 02:24 +0000
Re: the loop control Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-10-31 23:20 +0200
Re: the loop control pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-10-31 18:01 -0500
Re: the loop control Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-11-02 01:20 +0200
Re: the loop control 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-11-02 01:25 -0700
csiph-web