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: Sat, 19 Apr 2025 20:55:05 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <vu0v2n$22n7b$4@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2025 21:55:04 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5c7860f03a8e4f1e49f90b82bdb5768f";
	logging-data="2186475"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/xZlHf3Aqzf7cJazlQVhVD"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FnWR814LLkkMpa8kMqqYooPNtig=
In-Reply-To: <vu0t5m$22rjp$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB

On 19/04/2025 20:22, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 4/19/25 12:36, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-04-19, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>> bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>> On 18/04/2025 19:10, James Kuyper wrote:
> ...
>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> It's not an insult, it is a simple fact.
>>
>> It's not a fact that someone who finds tools problematic shouldn't
>> be using them.
> 
> I wasn't talking about him finding the tools problematic. I was talking
> aobut him find it difficult to ensure that the expressions are not
> arbitrary unrelated expressions, but are in fact correctly related
> expressions. If you cannot ensure that A, B, and C have the correct
> relationship to make for(A; B; C) work as needed, then you also lack to
> ability to make sure that the expressions in {A; B; C:} work together as
> needed, and that ability is fundamental to computer programming.

In other words, the feature is dumb.

The compiler cannot do any checking: for (i=0; i<n; ++n) is fine.

Even in BASIC, if I do this:

     for i=1 to n
     next n

it will say that n does not match. And here it is optional; in C that 
part is necessary.

So, BASIC's for-loop is less dumb that C's.

But, you have a bizarre take on this: if somebody calls it out, then 
rather than agree with them, you will personally insult the person who 
said it, and suggest that if they are incapable of such a simple check, 
then they shouldn't be coding.

The fact is that people make typos (obviously, not you or JP or SL or 
KT!), and here you would really prefer that the compiler could report 
them, but with this feature, it often can't.

Your attitude completely stinks, sorry.