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 13:00:26 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <vu2k4b$3ln5e$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2025 13:00:28 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8c2aa9c7d46a77fc74c1958bacd8a9de";
	logging-data="3857582"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18bfQoiLQhcyUU604gyXzP/"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wHf6tUDvwYtqo6m6/v8JjwpT8BE=
In-Reply-To: <20250420005242.00005d89@yahoo.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Bytes: 2822

On 19.04.2025 23:52, Michael S wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 13:55:02 -0700
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Again, I would not object to adding a new kind of for loop,
>> similar to what you would prefer, and visually distinct from the
>> existing for loop, in a new version of the C standard.  But that's
>> not likely to happen because there doesn't seem to be much demand
>> for it (for reasons that I know make you angry), and I don't care
>> enough to write a proposal.  If someone else does write a proposal,
>> I'll be glad to help out by nitpicking it.
>>
>> [...]
> 
> I don't believe that such proposal can be accepted.
> If I was a member, I'd certainly vote against it.

Exactly 19 days ago I'd even have written such a proposal, and,
fitting to the calendar date, of course I'd have used a distinct
name for the feature; 'for_losers(var,expr,expr[,expr])'.

BTW, a more serious question. Would a change of the "C" language
have syntax constructs with such _optional_ components?

Janis