Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Loops (was Re: do { quit; } else { })
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 13:22:47 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <8734dyy6eg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <vspbjh$8dvd$1@dont-email.me> <vtin99$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>
	<vu4cp5$3aou8$1@paganini.bofh.team> <vu5ems$230jl$4@dont-email.me>
	<20250421145818.767@kylheku.com> <vu6mtu$3apt8$1@dont-email.me>
	<vu8e1h$t2cb$1@dont-email.me>
	<87selzyhvp.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<vub6jt$3i20f$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 22:22:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="559a91cae6b172c7f978eee8629ad54d";
	logging-data="4069626"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+CvA8Z5gTh+JZlUdxYDVt0"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:746S9YJwn84MFuWkG8V2OBv5hJw=
	sha1:yT/k2tXGWQuHa34nFk/7Fx1qqFw=

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 23/04/2025 00:02, Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
>> Here's what I 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'll accept that "cautiously accept" is close enough to "would not
>> object".
>
> I had considered them as noticeably different, but I will of course
> accept your opinion here!  To me, "cautiously accept" is a sceptical
> "yes" vote, while "would not object" is an "abstain".

It's not about voting.  I'm not on the committee.

If I were on the committee and such a proposal came up, I suppose
I'd have to decide how to vote on it.  I don't know how I'd vote,
and I don't intend to spend time thinking about it.

If a new form of for loop were added to a future C standard,
I wouldn't object to it, and I'd likely use it when it became
available.  But I have no problem with the fact that such a construct
probably will not be added.  I consider existing C-style for loops
to be sufficient for that purpose.

[...]

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */