Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!rutgers!njin!princeton!phoenix.Princeton.EDU!pfalstad
From: pfalstad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul John Falstad)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: #define forever for(;;)
Message-ID: <3583@idunno.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 25 Oct 90 19:38:20 GMT
References: <250@motto.UUCP> <wb9lIa600awBI61Go2@andrew.cmu.edu>
Sender: news@idunno.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey
Lines: 18

In article <wb9lIa600awBI61Go2@andrew.cmu.edu> jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey T. Hutzelman) writes:
>However, I use for(;;) all the time in place of while(1) with no
>problem.  And yes, I believe that it is defined that the loop will loop
>forever if the condition is not given.  Some one back me up on this, or
>tell me I;m wrong.

K&R2, p224: "A missing second expression [in a for] makes the implied
test equivalent to testing a non-zero constant."

>>> Apple // Forever!!! <<

What a terrifying thought.  :-)

--
Paul Falstad, pfalstad@phoenix.princeton.edu PLink:HYPNOS GEnie:P.FALSTAD
"Your attention please.  Would the owner of the Baader-Meinhof shoulder-bag
which has just exploded outside the terminal please pick up the white
courtesy phone."