X-Received: by 10.66.82.103 with SMTP id h7mr261743pay.11.1355827259030; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 02:40:59 -0800 (PST)
Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!kr7no9711912pbb.0!news-out.google.com!6ni51265pbd.1!nntp.google.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 04:40:57 -0600
Message-ID: <50D04837.3186@mindspring.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 05:40:55 -0500
From: pete <pfiland@mindspring.com>
Reply-To: pfiland@mindspring.com
Organization: PF
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2)
References: <rfvoc8ludt8psl9s51v9re04gvuqhmj36v@4ax.com> 	<87hanlj6yl.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> 	<874njkjskj.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> <50CFB97C.3988@mindspring.com> <0.3d0bd95e6186d1006003.20121218013242GMT.87a9tcb0w5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <50CFCC9D.2D2A@mindspring.com> <kaon1l$gju$1@dont-email.me>
Lines: 59
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.154.218.89
X-Trace: sv3-mUfD0GryKb2EiLuBLxzXICHG9Z9Gh2fLwuShA9W22j/MtJT5vHo6Py/X4kF5WskOZCeoDBF60Z8sOIE!AYD/eWAUGs/32MCFK5rniHhh+DTnrVZqeuK1pfkRqtbUHQshM5yC6Bzred1AdkRJxcnuTOvrsA0i!PpgcaHAdzQ==
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3155
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:29458

James Kuyper wrote:
> 
> On 12/17/2012 08:53 PM, pete wrote:
> > Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>
> >> pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> Phil Carmody wrote:
> >>>> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> >>>>> This reinforces something that I've spotted historically
> >>>>> - there seems to be some strange fetish
> >>>>> for using the swiss-army for(;;)
> >>>>> where while() is perfectly suitable.
> >>>>
> >>>> Perhaps I should have worded those as just
> >>>> "for" and "while", I wasn't
> >>>> trying to imply the "(;;)" part, just the iteration statements.
> >>>
> >>> for (;;) is special.
> >>>
> >>> while () , doesn't compile,
> >>> even though K&R 3.5 says that they are equivalent.
> >>
> >> That's a very odd reading of the text! 
> >> I've tried a few times and I
> >> can't get that meaning from what's written in my K&R.
> >
> > The for statement
> >
> >     for (expr1; expr2; expr3)
> >         statement
> >
> > is equivalent to
> >
> >     expr1;
> >     while (expr2) {
> >         statement
> >         expr3;
> >     }
> >
> > except for the behavior of continue, which is described in 3.7.
> 
> There's a few other differences,
> the relevant one in this context being
> that expr2 is optional if a for() statement,
> but mandatory in a while()
> (6.8.5p1).
> Also, what you've called expr1 is called clause-1 in the standard, to
> reflect the fact that it can be either an expression or a declaration.
> If it is a declaration, any identifiers it declares have a scope that
> includes the entire for() statement, but does not extend to the
> enclosing block, so you should enclose your 'while' replacement in {},
> to give those identifiers the right scope.

I was talking about what K&R says 
and then quoting K&R in response to Ben Bacarisse.

-- 
pete