Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #98254 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-12-07 05:08 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-12-10 13:49 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 213 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 05:08 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-07 13:46 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 07:27 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-07 16:17 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Norbert_Paul <norbertpauls_spambin@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-07 14:54 +0100
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 07:29 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-07 17:20 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 01:24 +0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 22:51 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-08 07:30 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-12-07 12:45 -0500
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-07 17:50 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-12-07 12:56 -0500
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2016-12-07 11:09 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-12-07 14:38 -0500
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 23:29 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-08 07:35 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2016-12-08 16:57 +0100
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2016-12-10 03:45 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 01:08 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2016-12-09 01:30 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2016-12-09 01:50 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2016-12-10 02:34 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-10 03:18 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2016-12-10 07:43 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2016-12-10 18:21 +0100
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 10:08 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2016-12-09 19:19 +0100
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2016-12-10 03:56 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-10 12:39 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 14:58 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-10 16:01 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 19:47 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-10 20:16 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 21:11 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-10 22:33 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 23:50 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-11 00:35 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 16:52 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-11 01:34 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-11 02:25 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-11 17:11 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-11 18:00 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-11 19:44 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-11 13:11 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-11 22:40 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 02:03 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-12 12:53 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-12 13:04 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 13:27 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-12 15:16 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 23:00 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-13 00:59 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-13 03:25 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-13 13:08 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-13 05:56 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-13 15:31 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-13 08:27 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-13 18:07 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-13 18:12 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-13 18:26 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-13 18:34 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 18:39 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-12-13 13:47 -0500
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-13 19:03 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-13 11:30 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-13 20:10 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-13 12:42 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-13 21:29 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-13 14:27 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-13 22:56 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-13 16:13 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-14 07:33 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-14 09:05 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-13 12:48 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-13 21:37 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-14 00:08 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-14 01:24 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-13 17:56 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-14 02:33 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-14 10:03 +0100
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-14 02:09 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-14 12:24 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-14 13:00 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-14 08:54 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-14 17:01 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-14 17:27 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-14 20:24 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-15 10:47 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-15 11:54 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-15 04:02 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-15 07:40 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-15 11:48 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-12-27 20:19 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-16 01:52 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-16 11:09 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-13 18:35 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-13 20:18 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-13 20:14 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-13 20:15 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-13 22:26 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-14 02:19 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-14 12:45 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-14 14:00 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-14 20:59 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-14 21:59 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-15 02:42 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-12-15 01:20 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-15 09:28 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-12-15 01:42 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-15 09:53 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-12-15 01:55 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-15 02:03 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-15 10:13 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 22:05 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-15 14:15 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-15 10:44 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-15 03:31 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-16 01:11 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-16 06:16 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-16 17:24 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-16 09:53 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-16 20:38 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 21:13 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-16 21:50 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-16 14:19 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-16 15:03 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-29 13:27 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-29 13:41 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-29 13:57 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 22:55 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-29 15:34 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-13 02:51 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-17 02:20 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-17 02:21 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-17 12:14 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-17 04:56 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-17 19:28 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-12-17 22:51 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-12-17 11:45 -0600
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-17 19:42 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-12-17 20:39 -0600
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-18 10:49 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-12-26 14:30 -0600
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-28 03:48 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-12-28 07:15 -0600
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-29 01:05 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-16 09:41 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-16 10:01 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-16 12:31 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-16 13:33 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-17 11:12 +1300
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-16 14:30 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-12-20 11:16 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-20 03:29 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-29 13:25 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-30 10:48 +1300
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-29 16:46 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-30 13:51 +1300
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-29 17:22 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-13 02:45 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-30 01:01 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-30 14:04 +1300
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-29 17:23 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-12-30 00:56 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-13 02:41 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-01-13 09:59 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 18:48 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-15 12:08 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-01-15 23:09 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-01-15 23:18 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-01-15 23:37 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-01-18 11:32 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 21:25 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-13 11:54 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-15 11:58 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-29 12:05 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-12 16:13 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-13 01:09 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 16:08 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2016-12-11 01:31 +0100
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 14:52 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-11 15:26 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 16:22 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-11 16:42 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 16:56 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-11 12:56 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-11 08:55 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-11 17:19 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2016-12-10 04:09 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 15:18 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2016-12-10 07:30 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 15:43 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 14:56 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2016-12-10 07:57 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-09 11:40 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2016-12-10 03:19 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2016-12-10 07:49 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 16:11 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 14:45 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 22:59 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-12-08 11:26 -0500
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-12-08 11:48 -0500
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 23:33 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 23:09 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 09:53 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2016-12-07 11:26 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 11:50 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 23:12 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-08 07:31 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 11:00 +0000
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Alla _ <modelling.data@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 00:48 -0800
Re: while loop vs do while loop reading from the file issue Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-10 13:49 -0800
Page 8 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next page →
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 19:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87bmwaxrz8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #99758 |
Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> writes: > Malcolm McLean wrote: <snip> >> If you read the paper, Djikstra says >> >> We have now seen three types of decomposition; we could >> call them "concatenation", "selection" and "repetition" >> respectively. The first two are understood by enumerative >> reasoning, the last one by mathematical induction >> . >> The programs that can be written using the selection clauses >> and the repetition clauses as only the means for sequencing >> control, permit straightforward translation into a programming >> language that is identical but for the fact that sequencing >> control has to be expressed by jumps to labelled points. >> >> The converse is not true. Alternatively: restricting ourselves >> to the three mentioned types of decomposition leads to flowcharts >> of a restricted topology compared with the flowcharts one can >> make when arrows can be drawn from any block leading into any other. >> Compared with that greater freedom, to restrict oneself to the >> clauses presents itself as a sequencing discipline. >> >> Why do I propose to adhere to this sequencing discipline ? >> The justification for this decision can be presented in >> many ways and let me try a number of them in the hope that >> at least one of them will appeal to my readers. >> >> So that's the answer. Djikstra's five primitives are meant to be >> exhaustive. <snip> > They aren't just *meant* to be exhaustive; there's a riff from > "Godel, Escher, Bach" where he describes the languages Bloop > and Floop ( bounded vs. free loops ) and indicates that there is a > proof that "there is no higher level language than Floop" ). I take > that to mean that it is exhaustive and this has been proven ( I have > never taken the time to lay hands on that proof, though ). There's two meaning for exhaustive here. One: computationally complete (a model of computation that, given unlimited but finite resources, can compute any computable function), and two: describes all the structures present in some simple but none the less useful programming language. Dijkstra includes more forms than are needed for the first meaning because he's aiming to describe the combining forms that a simple programming language might have. I'm not sure which meaning Malcolm has in mind. > Of course the control structure that best-fits correctness > thinking is the Finite State Machine, which is something > you can build out of the mentioned primitives. Can you point me to something that expands on this? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 20:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o34sqq$gnp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #99764 |
Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> writes: > >> Malcolm McLean wrote: > <snip> >>> If you read the paper, Djikstra says >>> >>> We have now seen three types of decomposition; we could >>> call them "concatenation", "selection" and "repetition" >>> respectively. The first two are understood by enumerative >>> reasoning, the last one by mathematical induction >>> . >>> The programs that can be written using the selection clauses >>> and the repetition clauses as only the means for sequencing >>> control, permit straightforward translation into a programming >>> language that is identical but for the fact that sequencing >>> control has to be expressed by jumps to labelled points. >>> >>> The converse is not true. Alternatively: restricting ourselves >>> to the three mentioned types of decomposition leads to flowcharts >>> of a restricted topology compared with the flowcharts one can >>> make when arrows can be drawn from any block leading into any other. >>> Compared with that greater freedom, to restrict oneself to the >>> clauses presents itself as a sequencing discipline. >>> >>> Why do I propose to adhere to this sequencing discipline ? >>> The justification for this decision can be presented in >>> many ways and let me try a number of them in the hope that >>> at least one of them will appeal to my readers. >>> >>> So that's the answer. Djikstra's five primitives are meant to be >>> exhaustive. > <snip> >> They aren't just *meant* to be exhaustive; there's a riff from >> "Godel, Escher, Bach" where he describes the languages Bloop >> and Floop ( bounded vs. free loops ) and indicates that there is a >> proof that "there is no higher level language than Floop" ). I take >> that to mean that it is exhaustive and this has been proven ( I have >> never taken the time to lay hands on that proof, though ). > > There's two meaning for exhaustive here. One: computationally complete > (a model of computation that, given unlimited but finite resources, can > compute any computable function), and two: describes all the structures > present in some simple but none the less useful programming language. > > Dijkstra includes more forms than are needed for the first meaning > because he's aiming to describe the combining forms that a simple > programming language might have. I'm not sure which meaning Malcolm has > in mind. > >> Of course the control structure that best-fits correctness >> thinking is the Finite State Machine, which is something >> you can build out of the mentioned primitives. > > Can you point me to something that expands on this? > It's roughly - very roughly- in the direction of Church-Rosser. This isn't what I was looking for but it's not bad. https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/courses/compsci220s1t/lectures/lecturenotes/old/NFA.pdf Remember - academics think of automata in terms of "languages" for all sorts of historic reasons. So the terminology is biased that way. In fact, we can have "message passing" of linguistic elements for things like control and standard computation. Bruce Powell-Douglas' "Doing Hard Time" is a more cookbook approach. It may depend on the Rose tool ( Rational Rose ) and is oriented towards "executable UML". -- Les Cargill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-18 10:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8737hl7brt.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #99776 |
Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> writes: > Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> writes: <snip> >>> Of course the control structure that best-fits correctness >>> thinking is the Finite State Machine, which is something >>> you can build out of the mentioned primitives. >> >> Can you point me to something that expands on this? > > It's roughly - very roughly- in the direction of Church-Rosser. > > This isn't what I was looking for but it's not bad. > > https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/courses/compsci220s1t/lectures/lecturenotes/old/NFA.pdf Thanks. But that's just a standard text on NFAs and their languages, so I'm still lost as to what it was you were saying about correctness and control structures. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-26 14:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o3rufp$cro$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #99790 |
Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> writes: > >> Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> writes: > <snip> >>>> Of course the control structure that best-fits correctness >>>> thinking is the Finite State Machine, which is something >>>> you can build out of the mentioned primitives. >>> >>> Can you point me to something that expands on this? >> >> It's roughly - very roughly- in the direction of Church-Rosser. >> >> This isn't what I was looking for but it's not bad. >> >> https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/courses/compsci220s1t/lectures/lecturenotes/old/NFA.pdf > > Thanks. But that's just a standard text on NFAs and their languages, so > I'm still lost as to what it was you were saying about correctness and > control structures. > > <snip> > Don't confuse the toy problem described in the paper with the thing the toy problem is trying to expose. I said upfront that *FA in academic CS are overrepresented as linguistic examples. One technique that has traditionally been used to reduce the overhead in moving towards correctness is the finite state machine. It's "easier to see" than a big pile of imperative logic. There exist techniques like "model checking". -- Les Cargill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-28 03:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8760m4iuix.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #100307 |
Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> writes: > Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> writes: >> >>> Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> writes: >> <snip> >>>>> Of course the control structure that best-fits correctness >>>>> thinking is the Finite State Machine, which is something >>>>> you can build out of the mentioned primitives. >>>> >>>> Can you point me to something that expands on this? >>> >>> It's roughly - very roughly- in the direction of Church-Rosser. >>> >>> This isn't what I was looking for but it's not bad. >>> >>> https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/courses/compsci220s1t/lectures/lecturenotes/old/NFA.pdf >> >> Thanks. But that's just a standard text on NFAs and their languages, so >> I'm still lost as to what it was you were saying about correctness and >> control structures. >> >> <snip> >> > Don't confuse the toy problem described in the paper with the thing the > toy problem is trying to expose. I said upfront that *FA in academic > CS are overrepresented as linguistic examples. > > One technique that has traditionally been used to reduce the overhead > in moving towards correctness is the finite state machine. This is the bit I was hoping for more than one line about. > It's "easier to see" than a big pile of imperative logic. There exist > techniques like "model checking". Can you point me to something that expands on this? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-28 07:15 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o40don$10n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #100395 |
Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> writes: > >> Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> writes: >>> >>>> Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> writes: >>> <snip> >>>>>> Of course the control structure that best-fits correctness >>>>>> thinking is the Finite State Machine, which is something >>>>>> you can build out of the mentioned primitives. >>>>> >>>>> Can you point me to something that expands on this? >>>> >>>> It's roughly - very roughly- in the direction of Church-Rosser. >>>> >>>> This isn't what I was looking for but it's not bad. >>>> >>>> https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/courses/compsci220s1t/lectures/lecturenotes/old/NFA.pdf >>> >>> Thanks. But that's just a standard text on NFAs and their languages, so >>> I'm still lost as to what it was you were saying about correctness and >>> control structures. >>> >>> <snip> >>> >> Don't confuse the toy problem described in the paper with the thing the >> toy problem is trying to expose. I said upfront that *FA in academic >> CS are overrepresented as linguistic examples. >> >> One technique that has traditionally been used to reduce the overhead >> in moving towards correctness is the finite state machine. > > This is the bit I was hoping for more than one line about. > Understood. I'll try to get at it later. The problem is that I read about it and adapted my thinking abut it in pre-Internet days, and don't necessarily have footnotes. Google's been somewhat useless. The problem is that any example which shows the gain from the technique would be pretty big. Some guy's semester project would be too small to help much. Effectively though, the overall process is: - Enumerate all the invariants for a given... thing. Include timing invariants. - Map each invariant to a state in a state machine such that transition to the next state only happens when that nvariant is well and truly met. - Have logging to where you can tell which invariant was not met when that happens. Timers are important. Yes, you'll be tuning them. Sorry about that. Lag is variable in the the real world. From my own experience, I first used it in comms concentrators - real time devices on one end, a network on the other ( one such was a fuel dispenser doing credit card authorization). All connected by various variations on a serial port. All I can say is - mine[1] worked, and everybody else's didn't. The resulting code was accused of being spaghetti - seemed unfair to me. but I could sympathize. If anything, it was "structured sphagetti". :) [1] well, mine and the nice lady who wrote the network stack, a consultant who the boss brought in. The interesting thing is that in later gigs, having a picture fixed that, even if the picture was incomplete. The psychology of this is pretty interesting - that's probably why you don't see much of it. When it comes down to it, people don't really care if stuff works in all the edge cases that much. But what I'd done was generate a humngous test vector and mocked the rest of the system. I made a photocopy of all the specs, and used colored highlighters to partition the specs, then mapped that to the various FSM. We also had instrumentation to support demonstrating coverage. The end state? The machine, the stuff the machine ran on For Real, the mock, and log/instrumentation parsers. Five years later; no reported defects. >> It's "easier to see" than a big pile of imperative logic. There exist >> techniques like "model checking". > > Can you point me to something that expands on this? > One source is "Doing Hard Time" by Bruce Powell-Douglass, but it has an "executable UML" bias. -- Les Cargill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-29 01:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <kfnr34rw1ef.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #100307 |
Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> writes: > Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> writes: >> >>> Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> writes: >> >> <snip> >> >>>>> Of course the control structure that best-fits correctness >>>>> thinking is the Finite State Machine, which is something >>>>> you can build out of the mentioned primitives. >>>> >>>> Can you point me to something that expands on this? >>> >>> It's roughly - very roughly- in the direction of Church-Rosser. >>> >>> This isn't what I was looking for but it's not bad. >>> >>> https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/courses/ >>> compsci220s1t/lectures/lecturenotes/old/NFA.pdf >> [...] > > One technique that has traditionally been used to reduce the overhead > in moving towards correctness is the finite state machine. [...] I am skeptical of the idea being proposed (or claimed) here. If what you're talking about is a real finite state machine, in the sense of a finite state automata, these are very limited in what computations they can perform. Of course, if it happens that what you want to do fits into that framework, then sure, but almost no significant computation does. FSA's are extremely limited. If what you're talking about is some sort of "finite state" framework wrapped around more complicated state changes, then it's likely there's enough machinery so the result is Turing equivalent. If that's true then the "finite state" framework won't matter, because arbitrary complications can arise anyway. Of course there are less powerful computational models than general Turing equivalence, but even restrictive ones like Deterministic Push Down Automata (necessary if we want to be able to parse something) are rich enough so a lot of the questions one might like to ask are undecidable. Therein lies the inherent tension - if we keep to tractable model, it can't do very much, but if we pick a model that allows significant computation, then it's not tractable. So either I am misunderstanding what is being described, or it seems unlikely that it can deliver what it appears to promise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 09:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnzijvkbz5.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #99653 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
[...]
> Really we want this (pseudo-code)
>
> nextline:
> line = getline();
> if(line == endofdata)
> goto endofdata;
> processline(line);
> goto nextline;
> endofdata:
>
> but it's not structured.
But it can be written in an equivalent structured form:
while ((line = getline()) != endofdata) {
processline(line);
}
(This assumes `line` is of a type that can be compared for equality.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 10:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <10e036fc-93fb-4d99-ba8f-1bbd16448b8c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #99669 |
On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 5:41:33 PM UTC, Keith Thompson wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > [...] > > Really we want this (pseudo-code) > > > > nextline: > > line = getline(); > > if(line == endofdata) > > goto endofdata; > > processline(line); > > goto nextline; > > endofdata: > > > > but it's not structured. > > But it can be written in an equivalent structured form: > That's not really possible. Structured programming isn't about the notation you use for the program, but the logical flow. To turn an unstructured program into an equivalent one that is structured, you need to rewrite it, not translate it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 12:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lneg17k44t.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #99676 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 5:41:33 PM UTC, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>> [...]
>> > Really we want this (pseudo-code)
>> >
>> > nextline:
>> > line = getline();
>> > if(line == endofdata)
>> > goto endofdata;
>> > processline(line);
>> > goto nextline;
>> > endofdata:
>> >
>> > but it's not structured.
>>
>> But it can be written in an equivalent structured form:
>>
> That's not really possible.
>
> Structured programming isn't about the notation you use for
> the program, but the logical flow. To turn an unstructured
> program into an equivalent one that is structured, you need
> to rewrite it, not translate it.
That's a quibble about the meaning of the word "structured".
Whether it's strictly structured or not, I'd say that my equivalent
version (which you inexplicably snipped):
while ((line = getline()) != endofdata) {
processline(line);
}
is more *nearly* "structured" than yours, and that it's much clearer
(at least to someone reasonably familiar with C, and such readers
are usually my only target audience for C code).
Why exactly did you feel the need to post your version with goto
statements? What point were you trying to make?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 13:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <74cef61a-e3aa-4162-a9c7-22a89af0ce46@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #99684 |
On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 8:31:27 PM UTC, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> > On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 5:41:33 PM UTC, Keith Thompson wrote:
> >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> >> [...]
> >> > Really we want this (pseudo-code)
> >> >
> >> > nextline:
> >> > line = getline();
> >> > if(line == endofdata)
> >> > goto endofdata;
> >> > processline(line);
> >> > goto nextline;
> >> > endofdata:
> >> >
> >> > but it's not structured.
> >>
> >> But it can be written in an equivalent structured form:
> >>
> > That's not really possible.
> >
> > Structured programming isn't about the notation you use for
> > the program, but the logical flow. To turn an unstructured
> > program into an equivalent one that is structured, you need
> > to rewrite it, not translate it.
>
> That's a quibble about the meaning of the word "structured".
>
> Whether it's strictly structured or not, I'd say that my equivalent
> version (which you inexplicably snipped):
>
> while ((line = getline()) != endofdata) {
> processline(line);
> }
>
> is more *nearly* "structured" than yours, and that it's much clearer
> (at least to someone reasonably familiar with C, and such readers
> are usually my only target audience for C code).
>
> Why exactly did you feel the need to post your version with goto
> statements? What point were you trying to make?
>
A structured program should remain a structured program after
the compiler translates it to machine code.
The rule is that you can't jump into or out of a block. Each
block has one point of entry and one point of exit. But you can't
circumvent the rules by simply splitting a block into two and
jumping into the line connecting them.
You can however have backwards loops, otherwise you couldn't
have loops at all.
But I think yours and Ben's code violates some rule. It becomes
obvious if you ban all control-flow statements except if and
goto.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 11:12 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <ebj76hFqh86U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #99700 |
On 12/17/16 10:33 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 8:31:27 PM UTC, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>>> On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 5:41:33 PM UTC, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> Really we want this (pseudo-code)
>>>>>
>>>>> nextline:
>>>>> line = getline();
>>>>> if(line == endofdata)
>>>>> goto endofdata;
>>>>> processline(line);
>>>>> goto nextline;
>>>>> endofdata:
>>>>>
>>>>> but it's not structured.
>>>>
>>>> But it can be written in an equivalent structured form:
>>>>
>>> That's not really possible.
>>>
>>> Structured programming isn't about the notation you use for
>>> the program, but the logical flow. To turn an unstructured
>>> program into an equivalent one that is structured, you need
>>> to rewrite it, not translate it.
>>
>> That's a quibble about the meaning of the word "structured".
>>
>> Whether it's strictly structured or not, I'd say that my equivalent
>> version (which you inexplicably snipped):
>>
>> while ((line = getline()) != endofdata) {
>> processline(line);
>> }
>>
>> is more *nearly* "structured" than yours, and that it's much clearer
>> (at least to someone reasonably familiar with C, and such readers
>> are usually my only target audience for C code).
>>
>> Why exactly did you feel the need to post your version with goto
>> statements? What point were you trying to make?
>>
> A structured program should remain a structured program after
> the compiler translates it to machine code.
Says who?
> The rule is that you can't jump into or out of a block. Each
> block has one point of entry and one point of exit. But you can't
> circumvent the rules by simply splitting a block into two and
> jumping into the line connecting them.
>
> You can however have backwards loops, otherwise you couldn't
> have loops at all.
>
> But I think yours and Ben's code violates some rule. It becomes
> obvious if you ban all control-flow statements except if and
> goto.
Structure is much clearer if you allow all control-flow statements
including if and ban goto...
--
Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 14:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <37e6daf5-4a6f-47be-9236-dbfbfedf3638@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #99710 |
On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 10:12:41 PM UTC, Ian Collins wrote: > > Structure is much clearer if you allow all control-flow statements > including if and ban goto... > No, because the structure is a characteristic of the control-flow, not the notation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-20 11:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <58591225.764390@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #99700 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 8:31:27 PM UTC, Keith Thompson wrote:
> > Whether it's strictly structured or not, I'd say that my equivalent
> > version (which you inexplicably snipped):
> >
> > while ((line = getline()) != endofdata) {
> > processline(line);
> > }
> >
> > is more *nearly* "structured" than yours, and that it's much clearer
> > (at least to someone reasonably familiar with C, and such readers
> > are usually my only target audience for C code).
> >
> > Why exactly did you feel the need to post your version with goto
> > statements? What point were you trying to make?
> >
> A structured program should remain a structured program after
> the compiler translates it to machine code.
That is a. impossible for most machine languages; b. undesirable anyway,
for reasons of optimisation; and c. simply ludicrous. What a compiler
does with high-level source code has no import on how high-level or
well-written the source code is.
The other way 'round, yes: a badly structured program is bad not only
for human reasons but also because it is often badly optimisable. But a
well structured program can be optimised at least partly because it
allows a compiler to pull all the tricks in the book.
> But I think yours and Ben's code violates some rule.
"Some" rule. More intentionally vague bluster. _Name it_.
Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-20 03:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <428e33b4-36db-47f6-95a8-b86e9cba819a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #99903 |
On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 11:17:00 AM UTC, Richard Bos wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 8:31:27 PM UTC, Keith Thompson wrote:
>
> > > Whether it's strictly structured or not, I'd say that my equivalent
> > > version (which you inexplicably snipped):
> > >
> > > while ((line = getline()) != endofdata) {
> > > processline(line);
> > > }
> > >
> > > is more *nearly* "structured" than yours, and that it's much clearer
> > > (at least to someone reasonably familiar with C, and such readers
> > > are usually my only target audience for C code).
> > >
> > > Why exactly did you feel the need to post your version with goto
> > > statements? What point were you trying to make?
> > >
> > A structured program should remain a structured program after
> > the compiler translates it to machine code.
>
> That is a. impossible for most machine languages; b. undesirable anyway,
> for reasons of optimisation; and c. simply ludicrous. What a compiler
> does with high-level source code has no import on how high-level or
> well-written the source code is.
> The other way 'round, yes: a badly structured program is bad not only
> for human reasons but also because it is often badly optimisable. But a
> well structured program can be optimised at least partly because it
> allows a compiler to pull all the tricks in the book.
>
> > But I think yours and Ben's code violates some rule.
>
> "Some" rule. More intentionally vague bluster. _Name it_.
>
I don't have a perfect understanding of structured programming,
but it seems to me that by inventing a new primitive Ben is
breaking a property of the original system. In quite a subtle
way. But if you allow two entries into a square block from
square blocks, that breaks the "one entry" condition.
But parroting a rule is of limited value. It's best to try to
fully understand it from first principles.
The "structure" is the structure of the flow. It survives the
translation to machine code, and in fact was designed for
machine code. That said, there are exceptions like trampolines
(when the compiler needs to create an out of-range branch).
But a "block" is ultimately a physical thing. It's a set of
transistors, located together in space, bits set to various
values. The blocks nest, so, they form a tree, with a special
rule for recursion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-29 13:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b9478ce8-5425-4524-b8d3-a0dd5cd414f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #99905 |
On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 8:05:20 PM UTC, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>
> > On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 11:17:00 AM UTC, Richard Bos wrote:
> >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 8:31:27 PM UTC, Keith Thompson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Whether it's strictly structured or not, I'd say that my equivalent
> >>>> version (which you inexplicably snipped):
> >>>>
> >>>> while ((line = getline()) != endofdata) {
> >>>> processline(line);
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> is more *nearly* "structured" than yours, and that it's much clearer
> >>>> (at least to someone reasonably familiar with C, and such readers
> >>>> are usually my only target audience for C code).
> >>>>
> >>>> Why exactly did you feel the need to post your version with goto
> >>>> statements? What point were you trying to make?
> >>>
> >>> A structured program should remain a structured program after
> >>> the compiler translates it to machine code.
> >>
> >> That is a. impossible for most machine languages; b. undesirable anyway,
> >> for reasons of optimisation; and c. simply ludicrous. What a compiler
> >> does with high-level source code has no import on how high-level or
> >> well-written the source code is.
> >> The other way 'round, yes: a badly structured program is bad not only
> >> for human reasons but also because it is often badly optimisable. But a
> >> well structured program can be optimised at least partly because it
> >> allows a compiler to pull all the tricks in the book.
> >>
> >>> But I think yours and Ben's code violates some rule.
> >>
> >> "Some" rule. More intentionally vague bluster. _Name it_.
>
> Having read through most or all of the postings in this (sub-)
> thread, I would like to make a few general remarks.
>
> "Structured programming" doesn't have a formal definition. To
> the extent that it has a definition at all, that derives from
> Dijkstra's monograph "Notes on Structured Programming", which
> introduced both the term and various ideas associated with it.
>
> Only a small part of NoSP deals with compositional forms (eg,
> while, if, etc) in programs. In fact, most of NoSP is concerned
> not with programs but with the act of creating programs, which is
> to say the activity of programming. This makes sense considering
> the title: it is Notes on Structured Programming, not Notes on
> Structured Programs.
>
> In the matter of the thread topic, the discussion in NoSP admits
> the possibility that conditions (eg, in while's or if's) could
> have side-effects. A C-style while() loop, with a controlling
> expression having an action and then a test, satisfies the form
> of while loops that NoSP describes. Are such things "truly
> structured"? There is no definitive answer to that question, but
> they do fall into the set of constructs that NoSP considers.
> Moreover I don't see any reason to suppose that the particular
> compositional forms mentioned in NoSP are meant to be exclusive;
> what matters is the properties a compositional form preserves,
> which would for example be satisfied by a "loop-and-a-half"
> construct (which in C could be a while(1) with a single break
> somewhere in the body of the loop).
>
> In summary, two points: the question of whether a C-style while
> loop is "structured" is much ado about nothing; and the key
> question to ask is not whether a _program_ is structured but
> whether the person who wrote it is using the ideas of structured
> _programming_.
>
>
> > I don't have a perfect understanding of structured programming,
> > [...]
>
> Based on your comments in this and other postings in the thread,
> I would say that is a vast understatement.
>
Present company excepted, people use "structured program" as a synonym
for "well-designed program". They hear "goto is bad". That's typical
of mass thinking, everything (foods, political ideas, medical treatments)
are either "good or bad", and all words eventually degenerate into
either "hurrah words" or "boo words".
You can't have a "loop and a half" and still have a structured program.
Sorry, that is abundantly clear to me. The result is not a totally
unstructured program, or a "bad" program necessarily, but one which
violates a property of structured programming, and essential property,
that each block have one point of entry and one point of exit.
Putting square boxes into the expansions of diamonds seems to me
another violation, having thought about it for a while.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-30 10:48 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <ecleluFpuo9U9@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #100488 |
On 12/30/16 10:25 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>
> You can't have a "loop and a half" and still have a structured program.
> Sorry, that is abundantly clear to me. The result is not a totally
> unstructured program, or a "bad" program necessarily, but one which
> violates a property of structured programming, and essential property,
> that each block have one point of entry and one point of exit.
So something like
while( something )
{
if( doSomething() !=0 )
goto error;
doSomethingElse();
}
error:
breaks that rule?
--
Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-29 16:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e2fbbf2c-e52f-4c8b-9cd8-8f901a273750@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #100507 |
On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 9:48:54 PM UTC, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 12/30/16 10:25 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> >
> > You can't have a "loop and a half" and still have a structured program.
> > Sorry, that is abundantly clear to me. The result is not a totally
> > unstructured program, or a "bad" program necessarily, but one which
> > violates a property of structured programming, and essential property,
> > that each block have one point of entry and one point of exit.
>
> So something like
>
> while( something )
> {
> if( doSomething() !=0 )
> goto error;
> doSomethingElse();
> }
>
> error:
>
> breaks that rule?
>
Exactly.
The mistake a lot of people make is to think that since structured
programming is "good", "good" programs are structured (in the sense
intended) whilst bad programs are not.
The while block has two point of exit. So not a "block" in structured
programming terms.
Use of the term "structured" is confusing, since a program written
according to a different paradigm isn't necessarily "unstructured"
in the sense that it is spaghetti code or has no discernible structure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-30 13:51 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <eclpbkFpuo9U13@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #100587 |
On 12/30/16 01:46 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 9:48:54 PM UTC, Ian Collins wrote:
>> On 12/30/16 10:25 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>
>>> You can't have a "loop and a half" and still have a structured program.
>>> Sorry, that is abundantly clear to me. The result is not a totally
>>> unstructured program, or a "bad" program necessarily, but one which
>>> violates a property of structured programming, and essential property,
>>> that each block have one point of entry and one point of exit.
>>
>> So something like
>>
>> while( something )
>> {
>> if( doSomething() !=0 )
>> goto error;
>> doSomethingElse();
>> }
>>
>> error:
>>
>> breaks that rule?
>>
> Exactly.
>
> The mistake a lot of people make is to think that since structured
> programming is "good", "good" programs are structured (in the sense
> intended) whilst bad programs are not.
>
> The while block has two point of exit. So not a "block" in structured
> programming terms.
>
> Use of the term "structured" is confusing, since a program written
> according to a different paradigm isn't necessarily "unstructured"
> in the sense that it is spaghetti code or has no discernible structure.
Didn't you advocate the use of goto over other control structures in
structured programming?
--
Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-29 17:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2deb8daf-f36e-4f8b-8706-90bcd17577c0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #100589 |
On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 12:51:09 AM UTC, Ian Collins wrote: > > Didn't you advocate the use of goto over other control structures in > structured programming? > Yes. Structured programming is a paradigm. Understanding the paradigm isn't the same as advocating or using it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web