Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bart <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 11:15:06 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <vtlbja$3f46a$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vtbc6o$1te2o$1@dont-email.me> <vtbhjv$24api$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtbn2k$293r1$1@dont-email.me> <vtc19j$2kqlj$1@dont-email.me>
 <87a58mqt2o.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vtc7mp$2q5hr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtcqf6$3j95s$1@dont-email.me> <vtdh4q$b3kt$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtf7fe$1qtpg$1@dont-email.me> <vtgfuf$31ug1$1@dont-email.me>
 <20250413072027.219@kylheku.com> <vtgpce$39229$1@dont-email.me>
 <vti2ki$g23v$1@dont-email.me> <vtin99$vu24$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtiuf0$18au8$1@dont-email.me> <ilprvj5jbpcbr7fts2kdotfb81763u652g@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:15:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cec4580467d8bef69918f71b92c931ef";
	logging-data="3641546"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19wMS8/0VJn0bSrWM6I5uwK"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LUFJTwhWVG/AM+0BE8ylASkCtmQ=
In-Reply-To: <ilprvj5jbpcbr7fts2kdotfb81763u652g@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-GB

On 15/04/2025 05:57, Rosario19 wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 14:18:39 +0200, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> (While there's some "C" stuff in here it contains a lot of non-"C"
>> samples for comparison. So [OT]-sensible folks may want to skip this
>> post.)
>>
>> On 14.04.2025 12:16, bart wrote:
>>> On 14/04/2025 05:23, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>>> On 13.04.2025 18:39, bart wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>     for(let i = 1; i <= 36; i++) {
> 
> C for loop is great, but all can be workarounded with goto label

For this specific example (ignore 'let' for C), please explain why it is 
better than, say:

     FOR(i,1,36) {

This is 99% of my for-loops. Is it the same reasoning why I have to 
write 'break' in 99% of my switch-blocks?

There's something about this group which celebrates these annoying 
language characteristics which are only useful or meaningful in a tiny 
minority of cases: see how wonderful it is for 1% of the time?

That must surely justify them being both a PITA and dangerously error 
prone in the vast majority of cases!