Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!drillsys!soma!bcm5000!baylor!peter
From: peter@baylor.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Re: Unintuitive semantics for initializing in for statements
Message-ID: <640@baylor.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 10-May-86 08:33:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: baylor.640
Posted: Sat May 10 08:33:09 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 16-May-86 02:31:06 EDT
References: <17195@rochester.ARPA> <5334@alice.uUCp> <163@zaiaz32.UUCP>
Organization: The Power Elite, Houston, TX
Lines: 33

> 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?

I like it, however the semantics of the statement don't quite gibe with
the syntax if you use it the way you describe. How about this equivalence?

New Syntax		Equivalent Code (except for evaluations):

while(e)		if(e)
	s1			while(e)
else					s1
	s2		else
				s2

for(i; e; i)		i;
	s1		if(e)
else				for(; e; i)
	s2				s1
			else
				s2

...and so on. Of course, this doesn't address the problem of the value of
the iteration variable. Personally, I prefer to be able to test the value
of that variable directly. Of course I usually make my iteration variables
registers anyway, since most of the code I write these days is real-time
stuff...
-- 
-- Peter da Silva
-- UUCP: ...!shell!{baylor,graffiti}!peter; MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076