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

On 20.04.2025 15:53, bart wrote:

This is quite telling in that:
(1) You regard the idea of desiring such a feature as a joke
(2) You consider those who'd like to use it as 'losers'

No. As so often you make up things, and you are interpreting
things like your preconditioned brain wants to see them.

 

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

 
Why is that a big deal?

Why do you think I said or implied it would be a "big deal"?

 
C's 'for' already has optional parts, although the semicolons need to be
present. Do you mean allowing the comma in your example to be optional
as well as the expression?

I think the question in context of my sample is clear enough
and I see no point in further explanations or repetitions.

Janis