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

On 23/04/2025 00:02, Keith Thompson wrote:

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:

On 22/04/2025 02:12, bart wrote:

[...]

(Only Keith cautiously welcome the idea of such a feature, while MS
said he would vote against it, and JP said they would have proposed
it on April 1st.)

>
I don't recall reading Keith saying any such thing.  He said he would
be willing to nit-pick a proposal for a new "for-loop" syntax - not
that he would welcome it.  Perhaps he just thinks he would enjoy
nit-picking such a paper.  As for using a feature if it were added to
C, I know I probably would do so in my own code - that does not imply
that I think such a feature is needed, or that I have any trouble
using C's current syntax for simple loops.  (I find C++'s alternative
for-loop syntax nicer for iterating over containers, but that is not
as easily translatable into C.)

 Here's what I 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'll accept that "cautiously accept" is close enough to "would not
object".
 

I had considered them as noticeably different, but I will of course accept your opinion here!  To me, "cautiously accept" is a sceptical "yes" vote, while "would not object" is an "abstain".

[...]
 

I guess I am the exception - I've never needed any of these.  But for
your information, C23 has a _Lengthof operator

 C23 does not have _Lengthof.  It's proposed for C2y.
 

Sorry, yes.  The pdf I was viewing was the latest draft for post-C23 rather than C23.  My mistake.