Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!umd5!eneevax!noise
From: noise@eneevax.UUCP (Johnson Noise)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: From Modula to Oberon
Message-ID: <1301@eneevax.UUCP>
Date: 11 Mar 88 02:04:04 GMT
References: <7161@sol.ARPA> <2787@enea.se> <1345@daimi.UUCP>
Reply-To: noise@eneevax.umd.edu.UUCP (Johnson Noise)
Organization: Elec. Eng. Dept., U of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
Lines: 20
Keywords: FOR

In article <1345@daimi.UUCP> erja@daimi.UUCP (Erik Jacobsen) writes:

>This problem does not exist with WHILE/REPEAT-loops, and removing
>the FOR-loop from a language is one effective way of making it
>cleaner.

	I guess I don't have to tell you how C handles the problem.
In my opinion, it is by far, the most logical.  Sometimes I wonder
which construct (while, for) I should use. After all, they generate
the same code.

>Another way is to define what the FOR-loop actually means in one
>particular language, and today there is a PASCAL-standard. But
>we still have old compilers, and we have FOR-loops in other languages,
>that look the same, but behave differently.

	Not in C. Or should I say, _never_ in C.
I don't subscribe to the Pascal standard (or any so called standard
proposed by N. Wirth).  I think Ritchie (or Thompson) was rather shrewd
in this regard.