Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttrdc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!mgnetp!ltuxa!ttrdc!levy From: levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: The legacy of FORTRAN Message-ID: <288@ttrdc.UUCP> Date: Sat, 20-Jul-85 20:26:03 EDT Article-I.D.: ttrdc.288 Posted: Sat Jul 20 20:26:03 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 22-Jul-85 07:19:04 EDT References: <11457@brl-tgr.ARPA> <68@ucbcad.UUCP> <505@scc.UUCP> <1021@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> Organization: AT&T, Computer Systems Division, Skokie, IL Lines: 33 From: mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) Message-ID: <1021@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> >>Supposedly this is harder to understand. In the book "Learning >>to Program in C" by Thomas Plum he mentions that they looked >>at a bunch of C code and found out that 90% of C programmers >>use i and j as index variables. > >Which just goes to show that the FORTRAN integer type names will always be >with us. > > I always thought that the reason that Fortran used default i through n to begin integer variables was from the common use of i through n in mathematics texts to denote subscripts, which are of course integers; so it would make sense for C programmers to do the same regardless of the Fortran legacy. Does that make any sense? -Dan- -- Typo of the month: _______________________________ ______________ | yvel nad | | ------------ | | @ rekcah a | || $ rm *>tmp || | noisivid smetsys retupmoc t&ta | || || | sionilli eikoks | || || | "go for it" | ||____________|| -------------------------------- -------------- /ooooooooooooo/ | /ooooooooooooo/ | -----------------