Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere

fir wrote:

Bart wrote:

On 23/08/2024 11:47, fir wrote:

Bart wrote:

>

>
btw maybe not so much relevent as what you write but
if to think the convention
>
>
foir(int i=0; i<100; i++)
{
   //,,,
}
>
to amke int i scope relevant to only inner of the loop seem just
logically wrong

>
>
Actually it's one of the few places it makes sense!
>
But I don't like this idiom for several reasons. Sure, it can be
convenient to write:
>
  for(int i=0; i<100; i++)
>
without having to make an annoying detour to the top of the function to
write that declaration for i. But then you need a second loop, and a
third, and how you have to repeat a declaration each time:
>
  for(int i=0; i<200; i++)
>
Better to do it once and forget about it.
>
Then, it allows nested loops like this:
>
  for (int i = 0; i<A; ++i)
      for (int i = 0; i<B; ++i)
          for (int i = 0; i<C; ++i)
>
All those i's are different! Only the last is accessible in the inner
loop.
>
>
>

i never used nor even seen this with 3 i..for me as i said "loop" iteslf
not neccessary belongs to inside of the loop more like the outside..
here liek this this is misleading that the i is one thing - until
someone knows its just internat thing (but i as i said disagree it
should be intennal)
>
>
>

overally it is a question of loop should have its ovn scope at all
- and after this question stated im seem liek more to be closer to
teh optiuon that not