Path: ...!news.misty.com!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Michael S Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: C23 thoughts and opinions Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 12:01:48 +0300 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 27 Message-ID: <20240603120148.00003e58@yahoo.com> References: <20240602124448.704@kylheku.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2024 11:01:36 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2e115e67b3843932598c276339879624"; logging-data="4002254"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/5uJ5aQOQ6orbHsK1Deq4N9jhlZCNbmHQ=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:KNuYLgRKIghv05ymfOL6W1QdXKQ= X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.19.1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32) Bytes: 2223 On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 19:52:22 -0000 (UTC) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote: > On 2024-06-02, Lew Pitcher wrote: > > I've always considered > > for (;;) > > preferable over > > while (1) > > Of course it is preferable. The idiom constitutes the language's > direct support for unconditional looping, not requiring that to be > requested by an extraneous always-true expression. > > Using while (1) or while (true) is like i = i + 1 instead > of ++i, or while (*dst++ = *src++); instead of strcpy. > > When Dennis Ritchie (if it was indeed he) chose for to be the > construct in which the guard expression may be omitted, so that it > may express conditional looping, he expressed the intent that it be > henceforth used for that purpose. > > To continue to use while (1) after the proper utensil is provided is > like to eat with your hands instead of a fork. > The former becoming increasingly popular.