Sujet : Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })
De : bc (at) *nospam* freeuk.com (bart)
Groupes : comp.lang.cDate : 19. Apr 2025, 16:24:04
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vu0f6j$1n5bf$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 19/04/2025 15:35, Scott Lurndal wrote:
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
On 18/04/2025 19:10, James Kuyper wrote:
On 16.04.2025 13:01, bart wrote:
...
Unlike C's for, which is just a gimmick where you bundle three
potentially unrelated expressions and hope for the best.
>
If all you can do is "hope for the best", you're doing it wrong. It's
your job to ensure that they are not arbitrary unrelated expressions,
but correctly related expressions, and that's no different from your
responsibility for all of the other expressions that make up your
program.
>
>
>
If you find that problematic, you shouldn't be programming in
any language, but certainly not in C.
>
I see it didn't take you long to get to the personal insult. What is it
with this group?
It's not an insult, it is a simple fact.
No, it's not.
Someone points out problems with a poor, open-ended feature in a language, which could be alleviated by a more focused version that has been proven in countless other languages since the 1950s.
But no, that can't be possibly be the case with 'our' wonderful language. Clearly the person pointing out the obvious is incapable of being a programmer.
That should be left to the people suggesting:
for(i = 1; i++ <= 10;)
for a loop where the index is supposed to do the same as in Fortran's 'primitive' "do i = 1, 10".
So you are talking bollocks.
I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that you or anyone else gives up programming (I might only think that privately), but I would say stay miles away from any kind of PL design.
do { quit; } else { }
Re: do { quit; } else { }