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

On 17/04/2025 01:26, 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".

It seems to be happening a lot! SL is now claiming he never said what he did in fact say. JP has their own 'misunderstanding'. All trying to score some minor victory.
Would it kill anybody here to admit I might be right about something or that I have a point?

 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"?

Why don't you ask them to clarify?