Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 15:08:37 +0300
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <20250416150837.00004587@yahoo.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>
	<vtnfjj$1gk91$1@dont-email.me>
	<vto4fu$23kmr$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 14:08:39 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a5b6afe1e2db320795a254109bc9c05b";
	logging-data="2209462"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+SMY4TuolfLT2Lv8WDP6EKrjnNdmMHXYY="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ogNv4v/zcfrzjQbsruurM1u7UGk=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.1.1 (GTK 3.24.34; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
Bytes: 2915

On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 12:32:13 +0100
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

> 
> But never, mind, C's for-loop will still be the most superior to 
> everybody here. I'd have an easier time arguing about religion!
>

Who exactly said that it is superior? Surely not me.
I think, most posters here would agree with my stance that C for() is
non-ideal. esp. for writer, but good enough.

And it has a minor advantage of being more clear for casual readers
than most "proper" counting loop. When counting loop is written as C
for() loop, a casual reader does not have to consult the manual about
meaning of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd (if present) parameters.

I don't know about you, may be your memory is perfect. Mine is not.
Even with python, a language that I use more often than once per year,
remembering whether range(3) means (0,1,2) or (0,1,2,3) is an effort.
Much more so with (modern) Fortran, that I read very rarely. In case of
Fortran, it certainly does not help that the principle of do loop is the
same as for loop in Matlab/Octave that I use regularly, but the order of
parameters differs.

Oh, now you could interpret a written above as statement of superiority
of C syntax. So, no, it is not. Those are *minor* points.