Xref: utzoo comp.lang.modula2:1233 comp.lang.c:15875
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ukma!uflorida!novavax!twwells!bill
From: bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: "for" loops (was Re: C++ vs. Modula2)
Message-ID: <348@twwells.uucp>
Date: 29 Jan 89 22:57:13 GMT
References: <INFO-M2%89011219330825@UCF1VM> <739@jupiter.iis.UUCP> <1611@csuna.UUCP> <1626@csuna.UUCP>
Reply-To: bill@twwells.UUCP (T. William Wells)
Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale
Lines: 20
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Keywords:

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:

C is superfluous because it can be replaced by an equivalent assembly
program.

---

The C for loop exists because it encapsulates the common initialize,
test, and update control structure; it does not exist because such
encapsulation can't be written any other way, or to save keystrokes,
or any other such irrelevant reason.

---
Bill
{ uunet!proxftl | novavax } !twwells!bill