Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/28/84; site lll-crg.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!brooks
From: brooks@lll-crg.ARPA (Eugene D. Brooks III)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Re: condition convention 'if (10 == j)...'
Message-ID: <557@lll-crg.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 28-Apr-85 20:51:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: lll-crg.557
Posted: Sun Apr 28 20:51:18 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Apr-85 02:36:19 EDT
References: <brl-tgr.9509> <137@bocklin.UUCP> <1456@amdahl.UUCP> <2140@sun.uucp>
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Labs, CRG group
Lines: 24

> What do you mean, any criticisms?  This is one of the most ugly
> perversions of C I've ever seen!  I tend to read this in terms of
> "if variable equals constant" and try to figure out how the value
> "10" is ever going to change!  YUCK YUCK YUCK!!!!
> 
> People that write "if (10 == j)" probably also write "while (1)".
> What do you mean, "while 1"???  Are you expecting "1" to change???
> Everyone knows this should be written "for (;;)", read "forever".
> 
> 					Bill Shannon

I will agree with a claim that (10 == j) is not very pleasing to the eye
when you first see it.  To claim that it is a perversion of C is going a
little too far.  It legal C and usage has a definite purpose for the error
prone.  To then claim that while(1) is wrong and that the proper way to do
the same thing is for(;;) is going even further.  Beauty is in the eye of
the beholder.  I understand what is being done with while(1), the compiler
understands what is being done with while(1), even YOU understand what is
being done with while(1).  Hence its good C and does not deserve to be called
wrong.  For(;;) is not quite as clear to me and I would have to check the
manual first.

So lets cool the flame on a good suggestions that have the origin in the
solution for a problem that bites many.