Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Bart <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: on allowing "int a" definition everywhere
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 12:25:32 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <va9rjc$t0r0$2@dont-email.me>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 13:25:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="683b51147fd3c95c7018a07e9bc19669";
	logging-data="951136"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+YsdhPRU9QrA36tqnuE3RV"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xcnkMUUwD4hl8IFZuEfd97fcank=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <998bef736d537e847808326b9d25a20cbeb2c6f4@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 2273

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.