Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #29275 > unrolled thread

comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2)

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Test <test@.nil.invalid.com> - 2012-12-15 15:47 +0200
    Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-12-15 14:05 +0000
      Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-12-15 20:26 +0000
        Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-12-15 20:47 +0000
          Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-12-15 15:34 -0600
            Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-12-16 03:23 -0800
          Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-12-15 16:37 -0500
            Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-12-15 22:10 +0000
              Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-12-15 17:32 -0500
                Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-12-15 15:43 -0800
                  Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-12-16 02:15 -0500
                    Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-12-16 14:21 -0800
                      Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-12-16 18:34 -0500
                  Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-12-17 01:15 -0800
                    Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-12-17 10:30 -0800
                      Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-12-17 16:07 -0500
                  Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-12-17 08:13 -0500
                    Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-12-17 10:33 -0800
                Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-12-16 01:24 +0000
                  Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-12-16 02:19 -0500
                    Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-12-16 13:11 +0000
                      Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2012-12-16 14:51 -0500
                        Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-12-16 21:16 +0000
                      Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-12-17 00:55 -0800
                        Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-12-17 15:08 +0000
                          Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-12-20 10:40 -0800
          Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2012-12-15 22:09 +0000
    Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-12-15 06:11 -0800
      Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-12-15 13:26 -0600
    Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-12-15 09:24 -0500
      Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-12-15 12:21 -0800
        Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-12-15 16:42 -0500
        Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2012-12-16 00:09 -0800
          Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-12-16 08:46 -0500
            Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-12-16 14:29 -0800
    Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-12-16 10:30 -0500
    Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-17 12:42 +0200
      Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-17 23:07 +0200
        Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-12-17 19:31 -0500
          Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-12-18 01:32 +0000
            Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-12-17 20:53 -0500
              Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-12-18 02:29 +0000
                Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-12-18 05:48 -0500
                  Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-12-18 11:26 +0000
                    Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-12-20 16:20 -0500
                  Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-12-18 03:44 -0800
              Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-12-17 22:13 -0500
                Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-12-18 05:40 -0500
          Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-12-20 15:14 +0200
            Re: comma in a c statement, ie for(i=0,i2=0;i<10;i++,i2) pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-12-20 16:31 -0500

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#29455

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.

-- 
pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29456

pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> writes:

> 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.

Does it not go on to explain what happens when any/all of expr[123] are
missing?  Mine does.

Even if you stopped there and chose to ignore the sentences that follow,
I don't see how you can conclude that the equivalence applies to "for
(;;)".  You'd have to be sure that expr[123] can be "empty" and that's
not at all clear.  We've been told about expressions in chapter 2, but
none of the have been "empty".  We are told, right away, that it's
possible to omit these parts of the for loop, but the special meaning is
explained then and there in the sentences that explain that they can be
omitted.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29459

Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> 
> pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> writes:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Does it not go on to explain what happens when any/all of expr[123] are
> missing?  Mine does.
> 
> Even if you stopped there and chose to ignore the sentences that follow,
> I don't see how you can conclude that the equivalence applies to "for
> (;;)".  You'd have to be sure that expr[123] can be "empty" and that's
> not at all clear.  We've been told about expressions in chapter 2, but
> none of the have been "empty".  We are told, right away, that it's
> possible to omit these parts of the for loop, but the special meaning is
> explained then and there in the sentences that explain that they can be
> omitted.

If 3.5 had said that Superman and his sister
were equivalent except that Superman was a male, as described in 3.7.
and then the text said that Superman had x-ray vision,
I would take that to mean that Supergirl had x-ray vision too.

-- 
pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29460

pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> writes:

> Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> 
>> pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> writes:
>> 
>> > 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.
>> 
>> Does it not go on to explain what happens when any/all of expr[123] are
>> missing?  Mine does.
>> 
>> Even if you stopped there and chose to ignore the sentences that follow,
>> I don't see how you can conclude that the equivalence applies to "for
>> (;;)".  You'd have to be sure that expr[123] can be "empty" and that's
>> not at all clear.  We've been told about expressions in chapter 2, but
>> none of the have been "empty".  We are told, right away, that it's
>> possible to omit these parts of the for loop, but the special meaning is
>> explained then and there in the sentences that explain that they can be
>> omitted.
>
> If 3.5 had said that Superman and his sister
> were equivalent except that Superman was a male, as described in 3.7.
> and then the text said that Superman had x-ray vision,
> I would take that to mean that Supergirl had x-ray vision too.

Which is not analogous to what K&R wrote.  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.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29547

Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> 
> pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> writes:
> 
> > Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>
> >> pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29461

pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> writes:
> Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> writes:
>> > Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> >> pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> writes:
[...]
>> >> > 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.
>> 
>> Does it not go on to explain what happens when any/all of expr[123] are
>> missing?  Mine does.
>> 
>> Even if you stopped there and chose to ignore the sentences that follow,
>> I don't see how you can conclude that the equivalence applies to "for
>> (;;)".  You'd have to be sure that expr[123] can be "empty" and that's
>> not at all clear.  We've been told about expressions in chapter 2, but
>> none of the have been "empty".  We are told, right away, that it's
>> possible to omit these parts of the for loop, but the special meaning is
>> explained then and there in the sentences that explain that they can be
>> omitted.
>
> If 3.5 had said that Superman and his sister
> were equivalent except that Superman was a male, as described in 3.7.
> and then the text said that Superman had x-ray vision,
> I would take that to mean that Supergirl had x-ray vision too.

The text doesn't say that for loops *in general* are equivalent to
the given while loop.  It says that

    for (expr1; expr2; expr3)
        statement

is equivalent to the given while loop.  It refers to a *subset*
of all for loops, i.e., those for which all three exprs are present.

It goes on to say that any or all of expr1, expr2, and expr3 may
be *omitted*, not that any of them may be *empty*.  (And the names
imply that they're expressions; there's no such thing as an empty
expression.)  If expr1 or expr3 is omitted, it's simply dropped
from the expansion.  If expr2 is omitted, K&R doesn't even show an
equivalent while loop; it merely says that the for loop is infinite.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Will write code for food.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29457

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.
-- 
James Kuyper

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29514

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.

Now read what I just wrote, and pay attention to where I say you should ignore the
open bracket, the two semicolons, and the closed bracket.

Phil
-- 
I'm not saying that google groups censors my posts, but there's a strong link
between me saying "google groups sucks" in articles, and them disappearing.

Oh - I guess I might be saying that google groups censors my posts.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29548

Phil Carmody 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.
> 
> Now read what I just wrote,
> and pay attention to where I say you should ignore the
> open bracket, the two semicolons, and the closed bracket.

This problem will get worse as I get older.

-- 
pete

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web