Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

On 19/04/2025 20:54, Keith Thompson wrote:

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]

I don't understand why you're happy using a crippled looping
mechanism, that is a PITA to use for the majority of iterating loops,
just so you have that flexibility for the whacky loops that are in the
minority, most of which can be trivially expressed with 'while'.

[...]
I agree.  You don't understand.  What confuses me is your complete
lack
of interest in trying to understand.
Many of us are happy using C's for loop because we don't consider
it to be crippled.  It is not a PITA to use it for the majority of
iterating loops; we just use a very common coding pattern like
     for (int i = 0; i < N; i ++) {
         // ...
     }
We can write "i --" if we want the loop to run in reverse,

>
That's not enough for it to run in reverse.

No, it's not.  I didn't mean to imply that it was.

                                            I'd be interested in a
complete example.

Really?  It's such a simple example that I'm surprised you think you
need my help.  But ok :

    for (int i = N-1; i >=0; i --) {
        // ...
    }

I wrote that off the top of my head.  I then wrote and compiled a
program using it, and it worked.

A similar loop with an iteration variable of an unsigned type would
fail because `i >= 0` is always true.  I have some thoughts about
how to deal with that, but I'll leave that aside.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */