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

On 21/04/2025 03:08, Keith Thompson wrote:

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

But I hear so much about how wonderful it is, how multi-purpose, how
indispensible, how superior to an ordinary 'for' (admittedly from
people who don't have a choice) that I didn't want to miss out!

 Again, stop misrepresenting what other people say.
 Wonderful?  No, I don't recall anyone other than you using that word,
and only sarcastically.

I used 'wonderful' to summarise what people arguing against me have said about it. Am I not allowed to use an adjective unless it's one that somebody else has already used? If so, how come they're allowed to use it first?
You're being silly here.

 Multi-purpose?  Yes, absolutely.

You hit the nail on the head. Take this previously posted example:
     for (character = 0; character <= 255; character++) {
Such syntax for a trivial iteration seems to be tolerated; why? Because it can also be adapted to traversing linked lists? That's just irrational!

Indispensible?  No, I don't believe anyone has made that claim, and it
would be inaccurate.

Well, any control flow can be implemented with goto. But if you suggest to people that they lose those bizarre capabilities of 'for' they will be aghast. How on earth will they express all those weird and wonderful constructs.
Just read the thread if you don't believe me!

Superior to an ordinary 'for'?  Certainly a lot of people think it is,
because of its flexibility.

Yes, some people have said some of these. Are you suggesting that everyone needs to have said all of those things before I can make such a remark?
I think it's quite clear what the attitude of most here is.