Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: fir <fir@grunge.pl>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 17:57:17 +0200
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <4988acc3f55047bb612ab2332d6f9e43ab085f38@i2pn2.org>
References: <afdfe7c37c6ad739fd82c7ec0587b82e0963fce2@i2pn2.org> <va2i90$3f4dg$1@dont-email.me> <pan$8a32c$1fb86219$8ea0c6ae$7c2d1765@invalid.invalid> <va4id0$3rc3n$1@dont-email.me> <pan$2be2c$5ea44d54$282eec3$b0bcf030@invalid.invalid> <va727r$d1jq$1@dont-email.me> <998bef736d537e847808326b9d25a20cbeb2c6f4@i2pn2.org> <va9rjc$t0r0$2@dont-email.me> <6dc72d2d020f5648efbecad66062706d54fb28bc@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 15:57:13 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3609993"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="+ydHcGjgSeBt3Wz3WTfKefUptpAWaXduqfw5xdfsuS0";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:27.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/27.0 SeaMonkey/2.24
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <6dc72d2d020f5648efbecad66062706d54fb28bc@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 2886
Lines: 55

fir wrote:
> Bart wrote:
>> On 23/08/2024 11:47, fir wrote:
>>> Bart wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> btw maybe not so much relevent as what you write but
>>> if to think the convention
>>>
>>>
>>> foir(int i=0; i<100; i++)
>>> {
>>>    //,,,
>>> }
>>>
>>> to amke int i scope relevant to only inner of the loop seem just
>>> logically wrong
>>
>>
>> Actually it's one of the few places it makes sense!
>>
>> But I don't like this idiom for several reasons. Sure, it can be
>> convenient to write:
>>
>>   for(int i=0; i<100; i++)
>>
>> without having to make an annoying detour to the top of the function to
>> write that declaration for i. But then you need a second loop, and a
>> third, and how you have to repeat a declaration each time:
>>
>>   for(int i=0; i<200; i++)
>>
>> Better to do it once and forget about it.
>>
>> Then, it allows nested loops like this:
>>
>>   for (int i = 0; i<A; ++i)
>>       for (int i = 0; i<B; ++i)
>>           for (int i = 0; i<C; ++i)
>>
>> All those i's are different! Only the last is accessible in the inner
>> loop.
>>
>>
>>
> i never used nor even seen this with 3 i..for me as i said "loop" iteslf
> not neccessary belongs to inside of the loop more like the outside..
> here liek this this is misleading that the i is one thing - until
> someone knows its just internat thing (but i as i said disagree it
> should be intennal)
>
>
>
overally it is a question of loop should have its ovn scope at all
- and after this question stated im seem liek more to be closer to
teh optiuon that not