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

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

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

[...]

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".

It's not about voting.  I'm not on the committee.

If I were on the committee and such a proposal came up, I suppose
I'd have to decide how to vote on it.  I don't know how I'd vote,
and I don't intend to spend time thinking about it.

If a new form of for loop were added to a future C standard,
I wouldn't object to it, and I'd likely use it when it became
available.  But I have no problem with the fact that such a construct
probably will not be added.  I consider existing C-style for loops
to be sufficient for that purpose.

[...]

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */