Sujet : Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })
De : bc (at) *nospam* freeuk.com (bart)
Groupes : comp.lang.cDate : 19. Apr 2025, 20:55:05
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vu0v2n$22n7b$4@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 19/04/2025 20:22, James Kuyper wrote:
On 4/19/25 12:36, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-04-19, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
On 18/04/2025 19:10, James Kuyper wrote:
...
If all you can do is "hope for the best", you're doing it wrong. It's
your job to ensure that they are not arbitrary unrelated expressions,
but correctly related expressions, and that's no different from your
responsibility for all of the other expressions that make up your
program.
>
>
>
If you find that problematic, you shouldn't be programming in
any language, but certainly not in C.
>
I see it didn't take you long to get to the personal insult. What is it
with this group?
>
It's not an insult, it is a simple fact.
>
It's not a fact that someone who finds tools problematic shouldn't
be using them.
I wasn't talking about him finding the tools problematic. I was talking
aobut him find it difficult to ensure that the expressions are not
arbitrary unrelated expressions, but are in fact correctly related
expressions. If you cannot ensure that A, B, and C have the correct
relationship to make for(A; B; C) work as needed, then you also lack to
ability to make sure that the expressions in {A; B; C:} work together as
needed, and that ability is fundamental to computer programming.
In other words, the feature is dumb.
The compiler cannot do any checking: for (i=0; i<n; ++n) is fine.
Even in BASIC, if I do this:
for i=1 to n
next n
it will say that n does not match. And here it is optional; in C that part is necessary.
So, BASIC's for-loop is less dumb that C's.
But, you have a bizarre take on this: if somebody calls it out, then rather than agree with them, you will personally insult the person who said it, and suggest that if they are incapable of such a simple check, then they shouldn't be coding.
The fact is that people make typos (obviously, not you or JP or SL or KT!), and here you would really prefer that the compiler could report them, but with this feature, it often can't.
Your attitude completely stinks, sorry.
do { quit; } else { }
Re: do { quit; } else { }