Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!purdue!bu-cs!mirror!frog!john
From: john@frog.UUCP (John Woods)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: for(;;) loop errors (Isn't this a joke?)
Message-ID: <1239@X.UUCP>
Date: 25 Oct 88 02:10:00 GMT
References: <6945@cdis-1.uucp> <286@lakart.UUCP> <337@lfm.fpssun.fps.com>
Organization: Servants of the Great White Frog
Lines: 25

In article <337@lfm.fpssun.fps.com>, lfm@fpssun.fps.com (Larry Meadows)writes:
> :> In article <4700019@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
> :> 
> :> 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.
> 
> Wasn't this a joke?  Everyone seems to be taking it seriously.

Part of the trouble with irony is that you need to make your statements much
more extreme than reality.  There have been a few people on the net who have
just about complained about all the nonportable C code on the net because
their $0.39 IBM-PC C compiler requires line numbers and comments that start
with REM... (and don't even THINK to tell these people "That isn't a C
compiler," it said "BASIC COMPATIBLE C COMPILER" right on the box!)

To all those who defend broken compilers:  there must come a point where it
ISN'T a C compiler.
-- 
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu

	Goooooood Morning Discovery!	-Robin Williams

	Abracadabra, 'press to MECO', America is back in space!