Sujet : Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })
De : Ros (at) *nospam* invalid.invalid (Rosario19)
Groupes : comp.lang.cDate : 16. Apr 2025, 11:04:59
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <avvuvjthasfsa9d8lqs3i6dk4gia1u1s1n@4ax.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
User-Agent : Forte Free Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 13:55:43 +0100, bart wrote:
On 15/04/2025 13:25, Michael S wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 11:15:06 +0100
bart wrote:
On 15/04/2025 05:57, Rosario19 wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 14:18:39 +0200, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
(While there's some "C" stuff in here it contains a lot of non-"C"
samples for comparison. So [OT]-sensible folks may want to skip
this post.)
>
On 14.04.2025 12:16, bart wrote:
On 14/04/2025 05:23, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
On 13.04.2025 18:39, bart wrote:
[...]
>
for(let i = 1; i <= 36; i++) {
>
C for loop is great, but all can be workarounded with goto label
>
For this specific example (ignore 'let' for C), please explain why it
is better than, say:
>
FOR(i,1,36) {
>
This is 99% of my for-loops. Is it the same reasoning why I have to
write 'break' in 99% of my switch-blocks?
>
There's something about this group which celebrates these annoying
language characteristics which are only useful or meaningful in a
tiny minority of cases: see how wonderful it is for 1% of the time?
>
That must surely justify them being both a PITA and dangerously error
prone in the vast majority of cases!
I regularly use two languages with "proper loops" - Matlab/Octave and
VHDL (Ada-like syntax). When writing loops in these languages, I don't
feel any extra convenience over C.
>
I'm not familiar with those, but the first Ada loop example I googled
for was this:
>
for Variable in 0 .. 9 loop
99% of variable in my C code it one just a letter lenght
In C that exact example would be:
>
for (Variable = 0; Variable < 10; ++Variable) {
>
or maybe:
>
for (Variable = 0; Variable <= 9; Variable = Variable + 1) {
somethime i use F as macro for "for" so for me above would be:
F(j=0;j<=9;++j)
So, in the Ada:
>
* Not having to write the variable 3 times (with C not always being
able to detect if they didn't match)
>
* Not having to either offset the upper limit, or juggle between <
and <>
* Not having to explicitly provide the code to increment the variable
>
doesn't have ANY extra convenience?
>
(You can have a 100MB compiler and you still have to tell it how to
increment a loop index! That is plain crazy.)
do { quit; } else { }
Re: do { quit; } else { }