Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site hadron.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rlgvax!hadron!jsdy
From: jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Loop "Equivalencies"
Message-ID: <84@hadron.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Nov-85 15:02:21 EST
Article-I.D.: hadron.84
Posted: Wed Nov 20 15:02:21 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 23-Nov-85 09:52:33 EST
References: <10200026@ada-uts.UUCP>
Reply-To: jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao)
Organization: Hadron, Inc., Fairfax, VA
Lines: 32

In article <10200026@ada-uts.UUCP> richw@ada-uts.UUCP writes:
>I'd like to point out what I think is a bug in Kernighan & Ritchie.
>    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?

I don't have my K&R with me.  I believe that when it got to
describing 'continue' ( a f t e r  describing these loops),
it pointed out that to express 'continue' in the above re-
phrasing, you had to replace it with 'goto contin' and add
the label 'contin:' before expr3.

Obviously, > 1 loop / function means different labels ...
too bad cpp didn't rip off a macro assembler for a label
generator.		;-)

Disclaimer:  No, I use goto's about once a year at most.
But, read Knuth's "Structured Programming Using Goto's":
it  i s  possible!
-- 

	Joe Yao		hadron!jsdy@seismo.{CSS.GOV,ARPA,UUCP}