Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C23 thoughts and opinions
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2024 13:31:38 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <864ja9ojit.fsf@linuxsc.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> <20240602124448.704@kylheku.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2024 22:31:39 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="df68cad4d9500866e5e56f3de5ab6749";
	logging-data="43441"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/TjdE5EOLpTpPkGoQax485vbFMWz9tmQs="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:aT4ZU0mPOcV8QpkSiIld1/IkUN4=
	sha1:LPlKqLsHkecfe2O9Zb7Ot6Unjlc=
Bytes: 1810

Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> writes:

> 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.  [...]

Using for (;;) for an infinite loop is an abomination.  Anyone
who advocates following that rule is an instrument of Satan.