Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!agate!labrea!decwrl!sun!limes@ouroborous
From: limes@ouroborous (Greg Limes)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: "for" loops in C ...
Message-ID: <73691@sun.uucp>
Date: 19 Oct 88 22:16:40 GMT
References: <14999@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <4700019@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <6945@cdis-1.uucp> <73408@sun.uucp> <23299@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Reply-To: limes@ouroborous (Greg Limes)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 23
In-reply-to: tim@crackle.amd.com (Tim Olson)

In article <6945@cdis-1.uucp>, tanner@cdis-1 (Dr. T. Andrews) writes:
>It is unwise to depend on "for" loops in portable
>code.  Use a "while" loop instead.
 
In article <73408@sun.uucp> limes@ouroborous (Greg Limes) writes:
>Dr. Andrews, can you provide an example of a compiler in common use that
>manages to get the for loop wrong?

In article <23299@amdcad.AMD.COM>, tim@crackle (Tim Olson) writes:
>Didn't anyone else see what Dr. Andrews was pointing out?  Saying that
>you should avoid the construct 1["string"] is *like* ...

I may have put my foot in the middle of that one, but maybe not. On the other
hand, it is easier to simply say that I was asleep at the keyboard, then to
point out the basic difference between getting a "for" construct wrong
(something basic to the language and hard to get wrong) in a compiler, and
failing to support subscripting an integer by a pointer (something a bit less
basic, and in fact rather arcane, that may fall by the wayside if there are a
lot of complex issues about pointers).

So, sorry for being asleep at the keyboard.
-- 
Greg Limes [limes@sun.com]		semper ubi, sub ubi