Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!enea!sommar
From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: From Modula to Oberon
Message-ID: <2827@enea.se>
Date: 10 Mar 88 22:07:34 GMT
Reply-To: sommar@enea.UUCP(Erland Sommarskog)
Followup-To: comp.lang.misc
Organization: ENEA DATA AB, Sweden
Lines: 23
Keyword: FOR-loops


Erik Jacobsen (erja@daimi.UUCP) writes:
>That is in fact the problem with FOR-loops - at least as they exist
>today.
>...
>If you write programs for portability, you must know what subset of
>valid FOR-loops will compile and execute correctly in all implementations
>of the langauge (and possibly in other languages), and otherwise use
>WHILE/REPEAT-loops.

I have already referred to Ada and I will again. Ada as I see it have
the perfect solution: The loop variable is declared in the FOR-
statement, and is thus not accessible afterwards. I can't but see 
that that definition solves the problems. No, if this had possible
for WHILE-loops to!

A side note: Since REPEAT loops are quite rare and an source of
error when used in the wrong place, it surprises me that Wirth
removed too, to make his compiler even simpler.
-- 
Erland Sommarskog       
ENEA Data, Stockholm        
sommar@enea.UUCP           "Souvent pour s'amuser les hommes d'equipages
                            and it's like talking to a stranger" -- H&C.