cottrell@nbs-vms.ARPA (COTTRELL, JAMES) (10/01/85)
/* Old business department. Doug Gwyn sez: > I think this illustrates one of the potential problems with > hiding the actual language underneath definitions. If the > loop REALLY continues "for ever", then it is probably not a > good algorithm. There are *lots* of `forever' type loops. How about process control applications, or communication boxes? These processes *never* exit (they are forcibly shutdown by pulling the plug, rebooting, or `exit' somewhere in a called funxion). > Possibly #define repeatedly for ( ; ; ) > would be a better fit to English. `Repeatedly' vs `forever'? Sounds like quibbling to me. > But (unlike the Boolean > data type) the extra effort of becoming familiar with this > usage does not seem to be adequately repaid in clearer code. > (Of course that's a judgement call..) I agree. My `handy.h' usually include a forever define which is forever unused. I just never remember to type it instead of `for(;;)'. jim cottrell@nbs */ ------
mikel@codas.UUCP (Mikel Manitius) (10/10/85)
> /* Old business department. Doug Gwyn sez: > > I think this illustrates one of the potential problems with > > hiding the actual language underneath definitions. If the > > loop REALLY continues "for ever", then it is probably not a > > good algorithm. > > There are *lots* of `forever' type loops. How about process > control applications, or communication boxes? These processes > *never* exit (they are forcibly shutdown by pulling the plug, > rebooting, or `exit' somewhere in a called funxion). This reminds me of something a known Labs mind pointed out to me once: There is no such thing as an "infinite loop" in programming, only "indefninite loop". -- ======= Mikel Manitius ==----===== AT&T (305) 869-2462 RNX: 755 ==------===== Information Systems ...{akguc|ihnp4}!codas!mikel ===----====== SDSS Regional Support ...attmail!mmanitius =========== Altamonte Springs, FL My opinions are my own. =======