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

On 19.04.2025 23:52, Michael S wrote:

On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 13:55:02 -0700
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:

>
Again, I would not object to adding a new kind of for loop,
similar to what you would prefer, and visually distinct from the
existing for loop, in a new version of the C standard.  But that's
not likely to happen because there doesn't seem to be much demand
for it (for reasons that I know make you angry), and I don't care
enough to write a proposal.  If someone else does write a proposal,
I'll be glad to help out by nitpicking it.
>
[...]

 
I don't believe that such proposal can be accepted.
If I was a member, I'd certainly vote against it.

Exactly 19 days ago I'd even have written such a proposal, and,
fitting to the calendar date, of course I'd have used a distinct
name for the feature; 'for_losers(var,expr,expr[,expr])'.

BTW, a more serious question. Would a change of the "C" language
have syntax constructs with such _optional_ components?

Janis