Re: Checking the loop variable after the loop has ended (Was: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }))

On 18/04/2025 19:33, Lew Pitcher wrote:

On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 13:58:08 +0000, Kenny McCormack wrote:
 

In article <vtrvc6$mjoi$1@dont-email.me>,
Lew Pitcher  <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:
...

     for (i=0; i<10; i++) { code that might or might not break }
     if (i == 10) puts("It ended normally");

>
It's also a handy idiom for a compact list search loop
where the terminating condition is either end of the list, or
a matched entry.
If the cursor isn't the end-of-list marker, then it references
the matched entry;

>
Indeed.  This is the common case - where you are looking for something, and
if you find it, you break out of the loop (one way or another).  If you
don't find it, then the loop terminates "normally" - and you need to catch
that case.
>

  for (n = NUM_ENTRIES; (n >= 0) && (node[n] != key); --n) continue;
  if (n != -1) printf("Found key at entry %d\n",n);

>
Bart won't like the way you've abused C's "for" statement syntax

 I've long since stopped caring what Bart does or doesn't like. :-)

That's fine. It's been far longer that I've given up caring what people think of my generated C code
(They used to like turning up the warnings high enough for it to fail. Clearly that defined but unused label is a critical error.)

 

to your own devious ends...

  I'll give you another devious one :-)
    #include <stdio.h>
   #include <stdlib.h>
   int main(void)
   {
     double nc;
      for (nc = 0; getchar() != EOF; ++nc)
       ;
      printf("%.0f\n",nc);

I'll give you this one. Finally something that is impossible to achieve with a simple and far more appropriate 'while':
     double nc;
     nc = 0;
     while (getchar() != EOF) ++nc;
     printf("%.0f\n",nc);

As do I. It is succinct, complies with the syntax of the C language,
and achieves the desired algorithmic goal.

That's a pretty low bar. You can say the same about any of my generated, low-level C code, which is pretty much unreadable by any human.
It's odd how some here have standards which stops them even declaring three related variables on the same line:
     double x, y, z;         // fails guidelines
But cramming as much crap as possible into a FOR-loop header, for no reason other than because you can, seems to be condoned.