Re: Concatenated if and preprocessor

On 14/03/2025 23:29, Tim Rentsch wrote:

Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> writes:
 

On 14/03/2025 21:10, Keith Thompson wrote:
>

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>

Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> writes:
>

On 14/03/2025 16:44, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>

     for(  int just_once = 1;  just_once;  just_once = 0  ){

>
Any reason not to say ...
>
do {
      ...
} while (0);
>
... ?

>
In fact using do/while(0) is what I first wrote.  But then
I thought, oh wait, what if an overzealous compiler gives
a warning because the while() expression is always false? :-/

>
That would break a lot of macros :)
>

[...]

>
Hmm, clang with -Weverything is okay with:
   do { ... } while (0);
>
But not with:
   if ( 0 ) { ... }
>
But it's okay with:
   if ( (0) ) { ... }

 These examples illustrate why I have the reaction I do.  That
plus the lack of clarity as to what the OP's actual requirements
are explains my decision to use a for() rather than do/while(0).

I think your "for" solution would raise far more questions to any reader than idiomatic "do ... while (0)" would, or even if ((0)).  I really don't understand your reactions at all.
But I fully agree that it would be a lot easier to give the OP a good answer if he explained his requirements and situation better.