Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ira.uka.de!smurf!flatlin!spirits!rob
From: rob@spirits.ka.sub.org (Roland Bless)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: MFM/IBM Decode
Message-ID: <185d09ac.ARN0290@spirits.ka.sub.org>
Date: 14 Dec 90 20:48:28 GMT
References: <49724@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <2542@wn1.sci.kun.nl>
Reply-To: rob@spirits.ka.sub.org
Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Organization: Byteable Software Products, private, Karlsruhe (FRG)
Lines: 29

In article <2542@wn1.sci.kun.nl>, Olaf Seibert writes:

> Many of them are translations from German books from the publisher Data
> Becker, and those books have a reputation of containing more incorrect
> than correct information.  Unfortunately, unless you already have a lot

That's true.
One Example: The Big C-Book (AMIGA) from Data Becker
             ("Das grosse C-Buch":Bleek/Jennrich/Schulz).
On page 82 they try to explain IN DETAIL how for()-loops in C work, but
you guess it, they aren't able to do this correctly:
for (i=0; i<5; i++) j+=2;
is naturally equivalent by definition to:
i=0; while(i<5) { j+=2; i++; };
Their version about it (WRONG!!):
1. Initialization of i (i=0); 2. Execution of the body (j+=2);
3. Incrementation of i; 4. Test the condition. #T->Step 2. #F->leave loop
They emphasize differences between for() and while() loops (execution of
the body before testing the condition at for()-loops) and show a wrong
assembler listing of the compiler output. :-D It's really ridiculous.

Greetings,
 Roland

--
R o l a n d   B l e s s |UUCP/Internet: rob@spirits.ka.sub.org              |
Kriegsstrasse 129       |BITNET: UKG5@DKAUNI2.BITNET      FAX: +49211623818 |
7500 Karlsruhe - FRG    |---------spirits--in--the--material--world---------|
voice +49 721 857328    |"They built machines that they can't control" STING|