Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!nosun!qiclab!m2xenix!puddle!p15.f42.n105.z1.fidonet.org!Jim.Long
From: Jim.Long@p15.f42.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Jim Long)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2
Subject: Re: Why are the loops so awkward?
Message-ID: <5760.26782571@puddle.fidonet.org>
Date: 14 Jun 90 19:56:36 GMT
Sender: ufgate@puddle.fidonet.org (newsout1.26)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:105/42.15 - Bink of an Aye, Portland OR
Lines: 23

In a message of <14 Jun 90  17:07:42>, cspw quagga (5:494/4) writes:

 >There have been a number of suggestions that my awkward problem
 >of processing every element in a string should be coded
 >like this
 >    i := 0;
 >    WHILE (i < Length(s)) DO
 >       process(S[i]);
 >       INC(i);
 >    END;
 > 
 >Although this works nicely, it violates all the ideas that one
 >should distinguish between definite loops (where the number of iterations
 >is known in advance, and a FOR loop is the most appropriate
 >construct), and an indefinite loop where one iterates until or while
 >the conditions have not been fulfilled.

Without seeing the definition of 'process(CHAR)' we cannot determine from this code fragment which type of loop we have.  If S[i] is passed as a VAR CHAR, the loop may be indefinite.


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!42.15!Jim.Long
Internet: Jim.Long@p15.f42.n105.z1.fidonet.org