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: do { quit; } else { }
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 06:23:43 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <vti2ki$g23v$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vspbjh$8dvd$1@dont-email.me> <vt31m5$2513i$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt3d4g$2djqe$1@dont-email.me> <vt3iqh$2ka99$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt5fed$ccri$1@dont-email.me> <vt5js2$g1t7$1@dont-email.me>
 <20250409142303.00004645@yahoo.com> <87ikndqabc.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <20250410115501.000037a5@yahoo.com> <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 06:23:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a33294dcd0843173374a50cf90c49dd0";
	logging-data="526463"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19M1wPUFK5jWxV4fuBxLGAr"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KG1oFDu4FC8mP7IqWQhyQ6XY6vg=
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
In-Reply-To: <vtgpce$39229$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2585

On 13.04.2025 18:39, bart wrote:
> [...]
> 
>   for(let i = 1; i <= 36; i++) {
> 
> Is it that hard to provide a proper for-loop where you don't have to
> spell out every single detail?

You mean like in Algol 68 or maybe Simula? (Both are interesting.)

> Fortran managed it in the 1950s!

I obviously don't recall FORTRAN good enough to have memorized any
"good" feature. But as (mostly?) an anachronism it anyway doesn't
matter any more (to me).

WRT FORTRAN _loops_ I (faintly) only recall a syntax ambiguity "by
design" (and jump labels); certainly not something to advocate.

Janis