Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C23 thoughts and opinions
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 19:52:22 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <20240602124448.704@kylheku.com>
References: <v2l828$18v7f$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2o57g$1t5p4$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <v3dkgh$2e0me$1@dont-email.me> <v3gou9$36n61$3@dont-email.me>
 <v3hrq7$1o743$1@news.xmission.com> <v3i7u3$3bp0v$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2024 21:52:22 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f6f70ca8b1668588f62f241d96efb0ad";
	logging-data="3676917"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/sFHrbdXFaQhVeifR9jAj0SMOsDA/OTyY="
User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.4-9 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:O/4lOWYToslPvuzd4KL7E6/2MeY=
Bytes: 2025

On 2024-06-02, Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> 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.

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca