Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!necntc!ima!haddock!karl
From: karl@haddock.ISC.COM (Karl Heuer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: From Modula to Oberon
Message-ID: <2973@haddock.ISC.COM>
Date: 15 Mar 88 16:49:40 GMT
References: <2827@enea.se> <1557@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu>
Reply-To: karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer)
Organization: Interactive Systems, Boston
Lines: 19

In article <1557@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> faustus@ic.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes:
>Here's the problem with that construct:  I often write [edited --kwzh]
>  for (i = 0; i < max; i++)
>    if (something) break;
>  if (i < max) ...
>If the loop variable is inaccessible outside of the loop there's no way to
>tell how it terminated, except by using an extra flag, which is ugly.

Personally, I think that duplicating the test (i < max) is just as ugly.  I
would write the above as
  bool issomething() {
    for (i = 0; i < max; ++i)
      if (something) return (YES);
    return (NO);
  }
  ...
  if (issomething()) ...
which does fit nicely with the short-scope index variable rule.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint