Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!minow
From: minow@decvax.UUCP (Martin Minow)
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: Superstition in Programmers
Message-ID: <327@decvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Jan-84 19:06:25 EST
Article-I.D.: decvax.327
Posted: Thu Jan  5 19:06:25 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Jan-84 02:57:48 EST
References: <598@dciem.UUCP>
Organization: DEC UNIX Engineering Group
Lines: 39

Mark Brader pointed out that my example used a while loop where
a for loop would be more appropriate and that I counted from
a value down to zero where a more tool-oriented approach might
be, say,

	function(max_value)
	int	max_value;
	{
	    register int	count;

	    for (count = 1; count <= max_value; count++) {
		something();	/* count is only a counter */
	    }
	}

Note some interesting "superstitions" that the above illustrates:

1. I used the "fortran" style of loop (1 to N) rather than
   the C style (the count was not used as an index):
	for (count = 0; count < max_value; count++) {

2. I didn't write the loop in a bizarre (C and assembler hacker) fashion
   	while (--max_value >= 0) {
   or (ecch):
	do {			/* We know max_value is non-zero */
	    something();
	} while (--max_value > 0);

Furthermore, I didn't transmit the negative of max_value and
count UP to zero, as I learned on the 7090 of blessed memory.

Speaking of 7090's and superstition.  I always remove the write
ring from a tape as soon as I remove it from a tape drive.
Always.  Without fail.  Tapes with write rings in are writable.
You learned that lesson once.

Martin Minow
decvax!minow