Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!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 13:32:08 +0200
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <6dc72d2d020f5648efbecad66062706d54fb28bc@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$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 11:32:05 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3583259"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="+ydHcGjgSeBt3Wz3WTfKefUptpAWaXduqfw5xdfsuS0";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:27.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/27.0 SeaMonkey/2.24
In-Reply-To: <va9rjc$t0r0$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2595
Lines: 50

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)