Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C23 thoughts and opinions
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 10:36:00 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <v3mjlg$bpds$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v2l828$18v7f$1@dont-email.me> <20240602124448.704@kylheku.com>
 <864ja9ojit.fsf@linuxsc.com> <v3lb0u$2452$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3ldn7$1pr90$1@news.xmission.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2024 10:36:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7740955b17fd8df0cccaba227b9e3b39";
	logging-data="386492"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19cP6iAXPL/9w3SDDUACVWvMk41zJCbxqo="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:akxle1jioT0Obx5UZBHNjTyM0a8=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v3ldn7$1pr90$1@news.xmission.com>
Bytes: 2842

On 03/06/2024 23:48, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <v3lb0u$2452$1@dont-email.me>,
> Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/3/2024 1:31 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Better than goto? ;^D
> 
> I can't believe we're still having this conversation.
> 
> Surely, on any reasonably modern compiler, all three forms will generate
> exactly the same code.
> 

I would think so, yes.  (I've used toolchains where that was not true, 
but they are firmly in my past.)

But conversations - arguments - about style of source code /never/ get 
out of date!

Personally, I'm in the "while (true) { ... }" camp.  To me, "for (;;)" 
looks like a weird smiley, and I do not fall for any appeals to Deniis 
Ritchie's authority.


But we are missing another option:

void mainloop() {
	// do something
	mainloop();
}

That should be fine with an optimising compiler.