Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!world!burley
From: burley@world.std.com (James C Burley)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Some interesting novice questions from a novice guy
Message-ID: <BURLEY.90Oct27060917@world.std.com>
Date: 27 Oct 90 10:09:17 GMT
References: <14488.27252b63@max.u.washington.edu> <3553@idunno.Princeton.EDU>
	<L3O6IN7@xds13.ferranti.com> <2620@cirrusl.UUCP>
Sender: burley@world.std.com (James C Burley)
Organization: The World
Lines: 23
In-Reply-To: dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com's message of 27 Oct 90 04:24:32 GMT

In article <2620@cirrusl.UUCP> dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:

   In <L3O6IN7@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

   >	while(*foo++)
   >		continue;

   I know I'm not a C guru, and maybe I'm the only one here who gets
   confused by autoincrement-right-after-dereferencing, but I have always
   hated that "continue" statement, because it bothers my intuition.  [...]
   --
   Rahul Dhesi <dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com>

I agree.  So what's wrong with the simple solution I've learned (or been
taught) to use:

    while(*foo++)
      ;

Doesn't the dangling semi say enough?  (I do the same thing with my empty-
bodied for loops.)

James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson    burley@world.std.com