Sujet : Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })
De : bc (at) *nospam* freeuk.com (bart)
Groupes : comp.lang.cDate : 16. Apr 2025, 23:14:23
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vtpa3u$357ma$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 16/04/2025 21:03, Keith Thompson wrote:
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
On 16/04/2025 06:35, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
On 15.04.2025 22:46, bart wrote:
On 15/04/2025 20:07, Scott Lurndal wrote:
[...]
Real for loops _are_ a three-way construct.
>
[...]
>
Any step other than 1 is unusual. [...]
>
Nonsense. Arithmetic loop steps other than one are noting unusual
and been supported by programming languages (and also been used)
since decades in programming.
>
So what are you claiming, that the majority of loops in any given
program will have steps other than +1 or -1?
Exactly, because "unusual" and "the majority" are the only
possibilities.
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
If you go back a few posts, Scott Lurndal was (1) trying to make out that all for loops consist of 3 elements like C; (2) showing examples in BASIC and FORTRAN that with 'STEP' parts that made them somewhat longer than otherwise:
"135 FOR I=1 TO 10 STEP 2 [BASIC]
for(i = 1; i < 11; i += 2) [C/C++]
do 1 = 1, 10, 2 [FORTRAN]"
This was misleading: C always needs that third part when incrementing, *even when the increment is one*, but BASIC and FORTRAN never need it *unless* the increment is other than one.
So I said 'Any step other than 1 is unusual". Which it is (I've seen enough code over half a century to know that is true, and I also spent a year writing Fortran professionally).
To which JP said this:
"Nonsense".
So do you agree with JP here or with me?
And if with me, why are you not having a go at JP; another of your chummy mates?
And if you agree JP, then same question.
We know your opinion. I for one acknowedge that your opinion
is valid, and you're entitled to hold it. We're just tired
of you making the same point again and again and again,
And I'm tired of people trying to catch me out with stupid, invalid arguments.
while
misrepresenting those of us who hold different opinions.
What point was JP making when they said "Nonsense", what opinion was being opined? My reply were only about the prevalence of certain steps in iterating loops within programming languages.
do { quit; } else { }
Re: do { quit; } else { }