Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!quintus!ok
From: ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: down
Message-ID: <856@quintus.UUCP>
Date: 13 Dec 88 09:43:13 GMT
References: <gables.352@umigw.miami.edu> <843@quintus.UUCP> <45476@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>
Sender: news@quintus.UUCP
Reply-To: ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Organization: Quintus Computer Systems, Inc.
Lines: 26

In article <45476@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> wald-david@CS.YALE.EDU (david wald) writes:
>In article <843@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
>>       for (chcnt = 0; (c = getchar()) != EOF; chcnt += c == '\n' ? 2 : 1)
>>           ;
>
>Urgh.  Yes, it's not *too* unreadable, yes it's correct, but if you're
>going to do it like that, why bother eliminating the while loop:

But I *didn't* eliminate any "while" loop.  I started again from scratch
and observed that the point of the loop is to maintain chcnt, and a "for"
loop was the appropriate structure.

In fact, the way I would be inclined to do this is a wee bit more general:
	char chlen[256];

	for (c = sizeof chlen; --c >= 0; )
	    chlen[c] = 1;
	chlen['\n'] = 2;

	for (chcnt = 0; (c = getchar()) != EOF; chcnt += chlen[c])
	    ;

The advantage of this is that you can also add
	chlen['\r'] = 0;
so that the same result will be obtained from a file which already has
CRLF pairs as from one which has single LFs.