Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!edison!steinmetz!davidsen
From: davidsen@steinmetz.UUCP (Davidsen)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re:  Infinite loops
Message-ID: <725@steinmetz.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6-May-86 15:22:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: steinmet.725
Posted: Tue May  6 15:22:29 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 8-May-86 22:03:20 EDT
References: <117@brl-smoke.ARPA> <116@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP>
Reply-To: davidsen@kbsvax.UUCP (Davidsen)
Organization: GE CRD, Schenectady, NY
Lines: 35

In article <116@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) writes:
>In article <117@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@BRL.ARPA (VLD/VMB) writes:
>>
>>do ... while(1);
>>while(1) ...
>>for(;;) ...
>>
>>are all widely-used idioms for unconditional looping in C.
>>I personally prefer the latter, but the choice is just a
>>matter of taste.  Any reasonable compiler will generate
>>efficient code for all three constructs.
>
>#define loop for(;;)
>
>This is a clean way to do it, but be aware that there is no obvious stopping
>point, and soon C purists will soon be declaring that your code has been tainted
>by exposure to noxious influences from Algol 68 or worse...
>

You could change the definition(s) to:
  #define loop for(;;){
  #define endloop }

Or, as I have seen in a few programs:
  #define ever (;;)
-- 
	-bill davidsen

	seismo!rochester!steinmetz!--\
       /                               \
ihnp4!              unirot ------------->---> crdos1!davidsen
       \                               /
        chinet! ---------------------/        (davidsen@ge-crd.ARPA)

"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward"