Path: ...!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: Sun, 20 Apr 2025 17:55:57 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <vu35ef$48rd$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vspbjh$8dvd$1@dont-email.me> <vtdh4q$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$1@dont-email.me>
 <hxOMP.335104$j2D.272394@fx09.iad> <20250419092849.652@kylheku.com>
 <vu0t5m$22rjp$1@dont-email.me> <vu0v2n$22n7b$4@dont-email.me>
 <87ldrvna6x.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <20250420005242.00005d89@yahoo.com>
 <vu2k4b$3ln5e$1@dont-email.me> <vu2u9h$3u92f$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2025 17:56:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6d930c12709adeb50c35c70a4b519e7d";
	logging-data="140141"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/qaAElGM+oBBeav3y1h85z"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vEWqumk/lkYmFWaiU8e2OrcAdng=
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
In-Reply-To: <vu2u9h$3u92f$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2682

On 20.04.2025 15:53, bart wrote:
> This is quite telling in that:
> (1) You regard the idea of desiring such a feature as a joke
> (2) You consider those who'd like to use it as 'losers'

No. As so often you make up things, and you are interpreting
things like your preconditioned brain wants to see them.

> 
>> BTW, a more serious question. Would a change of the "C" language
>> have syntax constructs with such _optional_ components?
> 
> Why is that a big deal?

Why do you think I said or implied it would be a "big deal"?

> 
> C's 'for' already has optional parts, although the semicolons need to be
> present. Do you mean allowing the comma in your example to be optional
> as well as the expression?

I think the question in context of my sample is clear enough
and I see no point in further explanations or repetitions.

Janis