Xref: utzoo comp.std.c:3114 comp.lang.c:29164
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!shlump.nac.dec.com!tkou02.enet.dec.com!diamond
From: diamond@tkou02.enet.dec.com (diamond@tkovoa)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: for(;;) vs. while(1) is a draw
Message-ID: <1740@tkou02.enet.dec.com>
Date: 29 May 90 00:45:54 GMT
References: <5876@buengc.BU.EDU> <12955@smoke.BRL.MIL> <5879@buengc.BU.EDU> <12971@smoke.BRL.MIL> <1990May25.092150.24611@gdr.bath.ac.uk>
Reply-To: diamond@tkou02.enet.dec.com (diamond@tkovoa)
Followup-To: comp.lang.c
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Japan , Tokyo
Lines: 20

In article <1990May25.092150.24611@gdr.bath.ac.uk> exspes@gdr.bath.ac.uk (P E Smee) writes:

>One benefit of 'for(;;)' over 'while (1)' which I haven't seen
>mentioned is that most (in my experience) versions of 'lint' will
>cheerfully accept 'for(;;)' without comment, while giving a 'constant
>in conditional' warning for 'while(1)'.

#ifdef LINT
    for(;;) {
#else
    while(1) {
#endif
    :-)

(Of course lint is broken.  Broken tools were desirable in those days.)

(Follow-ups to comp.lang.c, because this topic does not belong in comp.std.c)
-- 
Norman Diamond, Nihon DEC     diamond@tkou02.enet.dec.com
Proposed group comp.networks.load-reduction:  send your "yes" vote to /dev/null.