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

On 18/04/2025 14:37, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

On 17.04.2025 02:26, Keith Thompson wrote:

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

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.

>
I think the misunderstanding is over the meaning of the rather
vague word "unusual".
>
Did you really think that Janis was claiming that "the majority of
loops in any given program will have steps other than +1 or -1"?

 The "majority" is as a typical phrase introduced by bart as sort of
substitute for an argument. (I usually avoid claims about presumed
"majorities", about what "all" or "most" people here or everywhere
else do.)
 It can be easily looked up what I wrote; but bart regularly just
moves goalposts when he's lost, instead of accepting the obvious
facts (or other opinions based on experiences or else).
 To reformulate (from memory) some basics I actually said...
 Statistics of 98% for simple loops are close to reality,

I haven't been able to find that post. In any case, it was not in the sequence of posts stemming from this one:
* Scott Lurndal (SL) makes a claim that all 'real' for-loops have 3
   parts, like C's for(A; B; C) [point 1]
* He gave example of such loops in C, Basic and Fortran ...
* ... but used a step of +2 in those Basic and Fortran examples in
   order to contrive to give them a third part [point 2]
This is where I complained that such a step in Basic and Fortran was 'unusual' (in fact it's so rare then I wasn't even sure of the syntax), and which you called out as 'Nonsense'.
Later on:
* SL posts an example of 2-part C for-loop, which contradicts his claim of all 'real' for loops having 3 parts [point 3] ...
* ... which also turns out to be highly incorrect [point 4]
What's puzzling me is this: why are letting those Points 1, 2, 3 and 4 go, but aiming all of your criticisms at me?
In fact you're still at it! Eg: "but bart regularly just moves goalposts". So SL  didn't move goalposts?
Regarding Point 4, nobody picked up on it except for Michael S.
Not you, nor KT or JK who are usually pedantic about such matters.
Yet I state something which is actually correct, you call that nonsense, and everybody defends you and slams me!
Clear persecution, gaslighting, or both?
Please take a close look at your posting decisions: why you consistently attack my posts, but let dubious posts from others slide.

IMO.
Increments of +1/-1 were the rationale for Pascal's decision to
support just such primitive loops.[*]
You are lacking flexibility with only such primitive loops.
Many language provided support more more types of useful loops.
"C" loops have a flexibility that I appreciate and that I use.
Statistical numbers have obviously changed for non-simple loops
for languages that allow such usages.

This is 'my' flexible loop:
    do
      ....
    od
Add whatever you like in place of ....
C doesn't have a dedicated endless loop; it has to be either while(1) or (again!) for(;;). It might seem a small point, but it means I acknowledge the importance of such a fundamental construct. It also shows I don't don't consider it either a 'while' loop, or a 'for'.