Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!njin!uupsi!sunic!lth.se!E89HSE@rigel.efd.lth.se
From: e89hse@rigel.efd.lth.se
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Pascal (was Re: for(;;) vs. while(1) is a draw)
Message-ID: <00937A53.78217800@rigel.efd.lth.se>
Date: 3 Jun 90 16:14:09 GMT
References: <5879@buengc.BU.EDU> <1751@tkou02.enet.dec.com> <3104@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au>,<3928@darkstar.ucsc.edu>
Sender: newsuser@lth.se (LTH network news server)
Reply-To: e89hse@rigel.efd.lth.se
Organization: Lund Institute of Technology,Lund, Sweden
Lines: 31

In article <3928@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, femto@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (71017000) writes:
>
>I have used the following for several years:
>
>#define HELL 666
>#define FROZEN -273
>
>while (HELL != FROZEN) {
>    ... do whatever

 I think it would be better to write something like:

#if HELL != FROZEN
	for(;;)    /* or while(1) if you prefer */
		... do whatever
#endif

 This has the advatge that lint (at least some lints) won't warn you for
unreachable code. I also think, but this is a personal opinion, that it is
clearer.

 Henrik Sandell

ps. Concerning while(1) and for(;;). My old CP/m C-compiler (Digital Research)
used to have the declaration:

#define	forever()	for(;;)

 in portab.h. I agree that for(;;) is ugly, but somehow I don't think while(1)
look good either.