Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!rocksanne!sunybcs!kitty!baylor!peter
From: peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Re: Unintuitive semantics for initializing in for statements
Message-ID: <652@baylor.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 15-May-86 02:39:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: baylor.652
Posted: Thu May 15 02:39:38 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 18-May-86 12:28:00 EDT
References: <17195@rochester.ARPA> <5334@alice.uUCp> <101@cstvax.UUCP>, <224@tuck.nott-cs.UUCP> <805@bentley.UUCP>
Organization: The Power Elite, Houston, TX
Lines: 20

> In article <224@tuck.nott-cs.UUCP> nott-cs!anw (Andy Walker) writes:
> >In article <101@cstvax.UUCP> db@cstvax.UUCP (Dave Berry) writes:
> >> An alternative would be to have a 'for' expression - the same as a 'for'
> >> statement except that it returns the value of the iteration variable on
> >> exit.
> 
> Not all "for" statements *have* an iteration variable.
> 
> In C++, it's not so bad having statements which are not expressions, because
> you can just make a one-statement inline function and use "return".

How about going back to BCPL and allow *any* block to have a value that is
returned by "return" (or use the BCPL keyword "resultis")?

I have a question about C++: what is "cout << value"? I presume that's
supposed to print the value in an appropriate format, but I can't figure
why "cout". Why not "print value..."?
-- 
-- Peter da Silva
-- UUCP: ...!shell!{baylor,graffiti}!peter; MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076