Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!mayer
From: mayer@rochester.ARPA (Jim Mayer)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Unintuitive semantics for initializing in for statements
Message-ID: <17863@rochester.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 5-May-86 13:52:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: rocheste.17863
Posted: Mon May  5 13:52:26 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 8-May-86 06:42:23 EDT
References: <17195@rochester.ARPA> <5334@alice.uUCp> <163@zaiaz32.UUCP>
Reply-To: mayer@rochester.UUCP (Jim Mayer)
Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY
Lines: 26


Several notes have mentioned using loop variables after the loop as
a reason for making:

	for (int i = ...)

equivalent to

	int i;
	for (i = ...)

It seems to me that if the loop variable is really needed after
the "for" statement, then the second form is just about as easy to
write and expresses the use of the variable much more clearly.

I consider the current semantics a real wart.  Actually, after programming
fairly intensively in C++ for a month or so, I feel that scoping in general
is the single weakest point of the language.  The way enumeration types
(and constants in general) are handled within classes is particulary
poor.  Are the scope issues going to be addressed more fully in
subsequent releases?

-- Jim Mayer					University of Rochester
(arpa) mayer@Rochester.ARPA			Department of Computer Science
(uucp) rochester!mayer				Ray P. Hylan Building
       (via allegra, decvax, or seismo)		Rochester, New York 14627