Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Comma operator in for() statements
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 21:11:37 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <87sghypf2e.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <m9kd7f94epq2eumphiui7gf2ubc6p8ah8e@4ax.com> <irakkg-afr1.ln1@mail.home.palmen-it.de> <N4LdG.57428$WT2.44415@fx06.am4> <4fbkkg-2kr1.ln1@mail.home.palmen-it.de> <mDMdG.25483$GQ.24448@fx21.am4> <4fa819d5-bc63-4c81-bc3f-b328dfc0008a@googlegroups.com> <zgRdG.6625$wQ4.5423@fx23.am4> <1a9cdf79-5489-43d0-a050-888012804ca2@googlegroups.com> <JQ3eG.43843$mh6.36284@fx18.am4> <e2fb0e8b-399c-44a3-bdac-f58c45e9ffb6@googlegroups.com> <gv5eG.86562$vc4.5463@fx03.am4> <87zhc72f0u.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <c384102d-2c59-49a3-88ff-ed83f919fbf8@googlegroups.com> <r5atda$mid$1@dont-email.me> <6ed3fe7f-aa6e-41b7-9753-285b616c2cf4@googlegroups.com> <87eetirfyb.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <ecfe4b65-d4d4-4ecc-adbc-aedb90638692@googlegroups.com> <871rpirdt3.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <5788dcca-ca28-4fb4-b454-89436c601d0c@googlegroups.com> <87wo7aps7r.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <92746830-1308-4529-8384-853d94774550@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="cddcfdf96fa244ceeb789ef1142863d8"; logging-data="6965"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+PioGKRRx9CK4qsHfrvEIn"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:c5apKcnJBbCX3rvNmZwbMWbNGuM= sha1:2otZo+7WQokareS75uBNlvILBzs=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:150791

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> The ship has sailed, and now you'd have to support old style for loops 
> for a very long time, for backwards compatibility.

Probably pretty much forever, or at least as long as the language can
reasonably be called "C".  Removing C's existing for loop is just not a
possibility.  I was talking only about the possibility of adding a more
restricted loop construct.  C++'s range-based for statement might be an
inspiration (of course C still fully supports the existing for statement
it inherited from C).

>                                                    But if we were
> designing C from scratch, we could reasonably have a less flexible
> for loop. If people want complex conditions rather than simple iteration,
> usually over an array, they can use "while".

I disagree.  The flexibility of C's existing for loop is an advantage.

[...]

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */