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!gatech!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Loop "Equivalencies"
Message-ID: <3382@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 19-Nov-85 08:52:26 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.3382
Posted: Tue Nov 19 08:52:26 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Nov-85 04:05:35 EST
References: <10200026@ada-uts.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 23

> In Appendix A (C Reference Manual), p. 202, and p. 56, it says that
> the following:
> 
>     for (expr1; expr2; expr3)
>         statement
> 
> is equivalent to:
> 
>     expr1;
>     while (expr2) {
>         statement
>         expr3;
>     }
> 
> This is not true if "statement" is a block which contains a "continue"
> since, in the first case, "expr3", is executed after the continue but
> is not in the second case.
> 
> Am I missing something?

No, you have caught K&R in a misleading statement.  The equivalence
is only approximate, and continue breaks the strict equivalence.
Harbison & Steele (p. 209) have this right.