Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site zaiaz32.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxf!mhuxi!mhuhk!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!sb6!scbhq!uahcs1!madhat!zaiaz32!rlb
From: rlb@zaiaz32.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Unintuitive semantics for initializing in for statements
Message-ID: <163@zaiaz32.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 26-Apr-86 21:48:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: zaiaz32.163
Posted: Sat Apr 26 21:48:54 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 3-May-86 20:26:51 EDT
References: <17195@rochester.ARPA> <5334@alice.uUCp>
Organization: Zaiaz Communications. Huntsville, AL
Lines: 28

> The advantage in having the iteration variable declared in a for
> statement remain accessible is that you can test its value after
> the end of the loop.
> 
> 		-- Jonathan Shopiro

    As has been pointed out, the following construct commonly appears
in coding:
		for(i = 0; i < MAX_I; ++i)
			{
			    .
			    .
			    .
			}
		if(i >= MAX_I)
			<code 'cause FOR loop "fell through">

In the true spirit of language diddling, how about allowing "else"
statements to bind with "for"s as well as "if"s?  The "else" of
a "for" would be taken if the loop terminated "naturally".  That is,
the "else" of a "for" would be skipped if the loop was exited by means
of a "break" statement.  Of course, once you allow "for"s to have "else"s,
why deprive "while"s, and "do-while"s?  This is not a tenable solution
in C++, since it would break some existing C programs (unless "else"s bound
to "if"s more strongly than they did to "for"s :-)  Just a thought.  Pros?
Cons?  Gut-level feelings of revulsion?

{ihnp4|akgua|nsc}!zaiaz!rlb		-Ron Burk