Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vtvfop$rf2p$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { }) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2025 08:27:36 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 100 Message-ID: <vtvfop$rf2p$1@dont-email.me> References: <vspbjh$8dvd$1@dont-email.me> <vt8ei8$2vn84$1@dont-email.me> <20250410080629.532@kylheku.com> <vt94q5$3jjod$1@dont-email.me> <vt9628$3hhr8$3@dont-email.me> <vtammh$174ev$1@dont-email.me> <vtavn9$1dp7m$3@dont-email.me> <vtb8nv$1plb2$2@dont-email.me> <vtba81$1qfbm$1@dont-email.me> <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> <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2025 08:27:37 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f1784c7c3d314f9fd21fbbab9222f7ac"; logging-data="900185"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18tazP8lJ8jYZxMPpNjmmjx" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:cOXDG/Vi9knZizvyh1h5JLiHf3I= X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 In-Reply-To: <vtujko$3uida$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 6086 On 19.04.2025 00:27, bart wrote: > On 18/04/2025 19:10, James Kuyper wrote: >> On 16.04.2025 13:01, bart wrote: >> ... >>> Unlike C's for, which is just a gimmick where you bundle three >>> potentially unrelated expressions and hope for the best. >> >> If all you can do is "hope for the best", you're doing it wrong. It's >> your job to ensure that they are not arbitrary unrelated expressions, >> but correctly related expressions, and that's no different from your >> responsibility for all of the other expressions that make up your >> program. > > > >> If you find that problematic, you shouldn't be programming in >> any language, but certainly not in C. > > I see it didn't take you long to get to the personal insult. What is it > with this group? You have been repeatedly hinted that the problems you have are primarily on your side. You're constantly blaming the language. You are obviously incapable of writing correct "C" code. You still don't get it that *you* are the biggest obstacle to your success. And that you're repeating your whining about "C" and everything instead of stop posting tons of repetition, and instead thinking about what's said. Or just learning the basics would be more advantageous to you. - But you decided to continue your nonsense instead, as we see below. > > My remarks were about what C call's 'for', being a very low level > construct, even at this level of language. Certainly not "very low" (compared, e.g., to gotos) but not as abstract as in other HLLs; we all know that, and also explicitly stated that many many times. Why are you to stubbornly ignoring the facts that were written and stated. > > The language will not check that those three parts are correct for the > loop you are trying to express, because there is no way for it to know > that. Yes. Because "C" loops are different from other loop concepts. And the "three parts" are semantically not related. Accept that if you intend to program in "C". > > So that if you do make a mistake, it can't help you, unless it fails > incidentally for some other reason. This is where you cannot rely on the > compiler, and hence my remark. You can make mistakes in every language and in every communication and anywhere else. - Your postings are a source of mistakes, and the bad thing is not the mistakes; it is that you are *repeating* your mistakes on and on. > > See recent posts by JP where they used "<=" instead of "<", and by LP > where they used "N" instead of "N-1". If you mean my post where I said "all points proven"... I copy/pasted code from your post, but selected the wrong example. After posting and rereading I immediately noticed that and corrected that. - This was no "C" loop issue, it was a text copy/paste issue. It was _my_ [copy/paste] mistake (not a "C" language design mistake). Do you understand that? - If not try to not instantly write another post but first take 10 minutes to understand what was written. > > So, yes, I think that is problematic, and the fault is with the > language. This stuff isn't not hard to get right; even BASIC manages to > FOR-loops properly. As so often explained to you, BASIC has a most primitive loop.[*] If that's all you can intellectually handle you're obviously a lousy programmer (and far from a software engineer). It could be so simple; don't use "C" and all your problems are gone. (Well, at least all your "C" related problems.) [*] And the implementations I recall also didn't get implementation correct for use with real-valued loops. (Just BTW.) > > It's a bit of a cheek to suggest that if people tend to make more > compiler-undetectable errors because C's FOR is dumb, that they should > give up programming. If you cannot handle elementary things you should give up programming. (Or use it for your personal purposes only and stop bothering other people with your personal problems.) Janis