Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mfci!yale!wald-david
From: wald-david@CS.YALE.EDU (david wald)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: for(;;) loop errors (was Re: What does Z["ack"] = 5 mean?)
Message-ID: <40881@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>
Date: 21 Oct 88 04:51:48 GMT
References: <6945@cdis-1.uucp> <286@lakart.UUCP>
Sender: root@yale.UUCP
Reply-To: wald-david@CS.YALE.EDU (david wald)
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept, New Haven CT  06520-2158
Lines: 28

In article <286@lakart.UUCP> dg@lakart.UUCP (David Goodenough) writes:
>From article <6945@cdis-1.uucp>, by tanner@cdis-1.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews):
>> In article <4700019@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>> ) ...implementors, notably Encore, have been lax about implementing
>> ) integer[pointer] and integer +- pointer.  It is unwise to depend on
>> ) either form's working in portable code; ...
>>
>> It is also possible that compiler writers will get the "for" loop
>> handling wrong.  It is unwise to depend on "for" loops in portable
>> code.  Use a "while" loop instead.
>
>I would have thought that any compiler that can't do for loops properly
>is gonna die real fast...If I have to ditch for loops I'll go out and
>buy another compiler.

A couple of days ago I was reading a 17th century book by a man named
Wilkins, on the creation of a new language and writing system.  Included
in his new punctuation was a symbol for indicating the use of irony.  At
the time I thought this was a silly thing to have in a language, since
the point of irony is to simulate serious statements, and people should
have to realize it on their own.  After reading a few responses to Dr.
Andrews' statement, however....


============================================================================
David Wald                                              wald-david@yale.UUCP
						       waldave@yalevm.bitnet
============================================================================