Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 15:02:34 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <87selzyhvp.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <vspbjh$8dvd$1@dont-email.me> <vti2ki$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> <vtnekn$1fogv$1@dont-email.me>
	<vto2mb$20c4n$1@dont-email.me> <vtu4i5$3hteg$1@dont-email.me>
	<vtujko$3uida$1@dont-email.me> <hxOMP.335104$j2D.272394@fx09.iad>
	<20250419092849.652@kylheku.com> <vu0t5m$22rjp$1@dont-email.me>
	<vu0v2n$22n7b$4@dont-email.me> <vu4cp5$3aou8$1@paganini.bofh.team>
	<vu5ems$230jl$4@dont-email.me> <20250421145818.767@kylheku.com>
	<vu6mtu$3apt8$1@dont-email.me> <vu8e1h$t2cb$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 00:02:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="559a91cae6b172c7f978eee8629ad54d";
	logging-data="1603755"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/flVVPf7KA81irxc+DyzaW"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AWRvC/lyTh97o/3B8PdoRIradXs=
	sha1:RTyqRrQhaBikVzgawh6uMUyI/QU=

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 22/04/2025 02:12, bart wrote:
[...]
>> (Only Keith cautiously welcome the idea of such a feature, while MS
>> said he would vote against it, and JP said they would have proposed
>> it on April 1st.)
>
> I don't recall reading Keith saying any such thing.  He said he would
> be willing to nit-pick a proposal for a new "for-loop" syntax - not
> that he would welcome it.  Perhaps he just thinks he would enjoy
> nit-picking such a paper.  As for using a feature if it were added to
> C, I know I probably would do so in my own code - that does not imply
> that I think such a feature is needed, or that I have any trouble
> using C's current syntax for simple loops.  (I find C++'s alternative
> for-loop syntax nicer for iterating over containers, but that is not
> as easily translatable into C.)

Here's what I wrote:

"""
Again, I would not object to adding a new kind of for loop,
similar to what you would prefer, and visually distinct from the
existing for loop, in a new version of the C standard.  But that's
not likely to happen because there doesn't seem to be much demand
for it (for reasons that I know make you angry), and I don't care
enough to write a proposal.  If someone else does write a proposal,
I'll be glad to help out by nitpicking it.
"""

I'll accept that "cautiously accept" is close enough to "would not
object".

[...]

> I guess I am the exception - I've never needed any of these.  But for
> your information, C23 has a _Lengthof operator

C23 does not have _Lengthof.  It's proposed for C2y.

[...]

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */