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

On 20/04/2025 16:55, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

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.

Huh?????
You CLEARLY suggested such a proposal would be an April Fool's joke.
You CLEARLY chose to name the keyword 'for_losers'.
I didn't make either of those up; YOU did! Proof:
 > 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])'.
So what am I missing? What DID you mean if it wasn't that?
Or is it even worth my asking if you're just going to give me a runaround?

>

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"?

That fact that you are asking about it. Optional syntax is hardly novel in any language.

>
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.

Would it kill you to just answer Yes or No for once?