Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.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: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:20:21 -0600 Message-ID: <50D38117.2974@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:20:23 -0500 From: pete 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: <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> <0.d3d5ff8b39c0ee47e50b.20121218022900GMT.874njkayab.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <50D049E0.78C5@mindspring.com> <0.8f9aceb92cbc0fa096fc.20121218112616GMT.87y5gva9ev.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 29 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.154.216.160 X-Trace: sv3-BOUG8YbGGvY1hYv7vbDt1deJmZUf7R01uE0X4VpFwDp0lJx7ELsSSA6OD9Yw1GjGMvAyFUzvI5XmB3/!NMu6hVcbnZ3in72macoMrd5BfW1ZGB9hafL+XV2H/0PFcIDvFjrUBlKuO/1mRj8wj95w2VFNeSqY!VOD/DO2mQes= 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: 2165 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:29547 Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > pete writes: > > > Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >> > >> pete writes: > >> > >> > Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >> >> > >> >> pete writes: > >> >> > for (;;) is special. > >> >> > > >> >> > while () , doesn't compile, > >> >> > even though K&R 3.5 says that they are equivalent. > It does not say that all > forms of "for" can be mapped to the given "while". It says that some > forms (the ones that have three nonempty expressions) > can be so mapped. > It then confirms that this is not a universal rule > by detailing special > cases and how they affect the correspondence. Thank you. -- pete