Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!tank!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Fun C typos (was *p++ = *q++)
Message-ID: <15908@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 11 Feb 89 04:13:18 GMT
References: <777@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu> <223@nbires.nbi.com> <1184@houxs.ATT.COM>
Distribution: usa
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 16

In article <1184@houxs.ATT.COM> beyer@houxs.ATT.COM (J.BEYER) writes:
>for(i == 0; ...
>
>Now the funny thing was that i was seldom equal to zero on entry to this
>loop, so it started at FALSE or 0 almost always. But once in a while
>i did == 0, so the loop would start at TRUE sometimes. TRUE is not 0 in
>our implimentation. Very  vexing to find.

This is not the proper group for this, but I have to say *something*.
That is not how for loops work in C, and the true-value of any comparison
operator in *any* correct C compiler is 1 (not -1, not 17, not 42, 1).
The latter in particular in a common misconception, probably left over
from FORTRAN (and BASIC) systems that used -1 as .TRUE..
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris