Xref: utzoo comp.lang.modula2:1229 comp.lang.c:15872
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!ucsd!orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!blanche.ics.uci.edu!schmidt
From: schmidt@blanche.ics.uci.edu (Doug Schmidt)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: "for" loops (was Re: C++ vs. Modula2)
Message-ID: <6224@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Date: 29 Jan 89 18:30:36 GMT
References: <INFO-M2%89011219330825@UCF1VM> <739@jupiter.iis.UUCP> <1611@csuna.UUCP> <1626@csuna.UUCP>
Sender: news@paris.ics.uci.edu
Reply-To: Doug Schmidt <schmidt@blanche.ics.uci.edu>
Organization: University of California at Irvine: ICS Dept.
Lines: 35

In article <1626@csuna.UUCP> abcscagz@csuna.csun.edu (Jeff Boeing) writes:
++Hoo boy, did I ever mess up in my last posting.
++I forgot that a C "for" loop may be executed zero times.
++So, let me rephrase my conviction that a C "for" loop is superfluous
++because it can be replaced by an equivalent "while" loop, NOT an
++equivalent "do ... while" loop:

I don't think you've gone far enough.  After all, can't both a while
loop and a for loop be replaced by an if statement and a goto?

++
++    for (i = 0; i <= 17; i = sqr(i) + 2)
++       <stuff>;
++

versus

   i = 0;        
LOOP_HEAD:
   if (i <= 17) {
      <stuff>
      i = sqr(i) + 2;
      goto LOOP_HEAD;
   }
   
In fact, aren't all high-level control constructs superfluous?

Doug

p.s.  ;-) ......
--
schmidt@ics.uci.edu (ARPA) |   Per me si va nella citta' dolente.
office: (714) 856-4043     |   Per me si va nell'eterno dolore.
                           |   Per me si va tra la perduta gente.
                           |   Lasciate ogni speranza o voi ch'entrate.