Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!westmark!mole-end!mat
From: mat@mole-end.UUCP (Mark A Terribile)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Comparing strings...
Summary: Bothering about null statements
Message-ID: <444@mole-end.UUCP>
Date: 21 Oct 90 01:00:09 GMT
References: <1990Oct13.190106.15615@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <3330@idunno.Princeton.EDU> <11486@alice.att.com>
Organization: mole-end--private system.  admin: mole-end!newtnews
Lines: 35

> > int strcmp(char *s,char *t)
> > {
> > 	for (; *s && *s == *t; s++,t++);
> > 	return *s-*t;
> > }

> 				--Andrew Koenig
> 				  ark@europa.att.com

Note the semicolon on the  for(;;) .  Note that it's hard to note.

Another article on this topic replaced a null statement for a loop body
with a  continue :

	while( . . . . . )
		continue;

IMnsHO, the semicolon null statement is one of the more irritating glitches
in C.  I prefer

	for( ; *s && *s == *t; s++, t++ )
		{}

or

	while( . . . )
		{}

It's quite clear that this is an empty, no-effect statement.  It's a brace-
thing where you expect a brace-thing, and it won't get missed on a faint
printout the way a semicolon can be.
-- 

 (This man's opinions are his own.)
 From mole-end				Mark Terribile