Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: "handy.h"
Message-ID: <1192@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 3-Sep-85 14:30:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.1192
Posted: Tue Sep  3 14:30:16 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Sep-85 08:25:40 EDT
References: <10200006@ada-uts.UUCP> <532@linus.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 17

>     #define EVER ;;
> 
> then you can say:
> 
>     for(EVER) {
>         stuff;
>         }

I think this illustrates one of the potential problems with
hiding the actual language underneath definitions.  If the
loop REALLY continues "for ever", then it is probably not a
good algorithm.  Possibly
	#define	repeatedly	for ( ; ; )
would be a better fit to English.  But (unlike the Boolean
data type) the extra effort of becoming familiar with this
usage does not seem to be adequately repaid in clearer code.
(Of course that's a judgement call..)