devine@asgb.UUCP (Robert J. Devine) (11/08/85)
One thing that should be changed for consistency reasons is to get rid of "for(;;)" meaning "endless loop". This is the exception to the equivalence of "for" with "while". And, after all, why should a null expression be considered TRUE? Yeah, I know, breaking existing code and all that.... Bob
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (11/10/85)
> One thing that should be changed for consistency reasons is > to get rid of "for(;;)" meaning "endless loop". This is the > exception to the equivalence of "for" with "while". And, after > all, why should a null expression be considered TRUE? Are you talking about the similarity between this... for(init;test;increment) statement; ...and this... init; while(test) { statement; increment; } ...? Let's make init "i=0", test "i<10", increment "i++", and statement "continue". This gives us... for(i=0; i<10; i++) continue; ...and... i=0; while(i<10) { continue; i++; } ...for our two statements. The former terminates. The latter doesn't. -- Name: Peter da Silva Graphic: `-_-' UUCP: ...!shell!{graffiti,baylor}!peter IAEF: ...!kitty!baylor!peter