Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 18:43:53 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <20250416114333.706@kylheku.com>
References: <vspbjh$8dvd$1@dont-email.me> <vtc7mp$2q5hr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtcqf6$3j95s$1@dont-email.me> <vtdh4q$b3kt$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtf7fe$1qtpg$1@dont-email.me> <vtgfuf$31ug1$1@dont-email.me>
 <20250413072027.219@kylheku.com> <vtgpce$39229$1@dont-email.me>
 <vti2ki$g23v$1@dont-email.me> <vtin99$vu24$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtiuf0$18au8$1@dont-email.me> <vtj97r$1i3v3$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtl166$36p6b$1@dont-email.me> <vtlcg0$3f46a$2@dont-email.me>
 <20250415053852.166@kylheku.com> <vtm4ae$6d5j$1@dont-email.me>
 <H7yLP.2056536$OrR5.1414451@fx18.iad> <vtmgj8$g81k$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtn55a$17107$1@dont-email.me> <20250415201754.605@kylheku.com>
 <87h62o2296.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <20250416100013.700@kylheku.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:43:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="43d283a6790c1e441f00fcbbbcc44cba";
	logging-data="2978999"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18JqWu94CCIZBOdsgIRPXPBZYWq70Q6jPg="
User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.4-9 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jcyzx4Y0N1DyFk/xBQje729yPhU=

On 2025-04-16, Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote:
> On 2025-04-16, Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes:
>>> On 2025-04-16, James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> The key to using the for() statement is to make sure the three
>>>> expressions are related appropriately.
>>>
>>> The observation is valid that the three expressions often fall into a
>>> pattern by which they can be condensed.
>>>
>>>   for (var = from; var < to; var++)
>>>
>>> can be expressed by a construct which mentions var ony once,
>>> and omits the operators.
>>>
>>> You can obtain this with the preprocessor and be reasonably happy.
>>
>> Sure, you *can*, but I wouldn't.
>
> But then you would complain about the unpreprocessed version
> being verbose, because it becomes a choice at that point.

s/would/woudln't/