Iu sugestis pri "dum c^iam" kaj "g^is".  Mi scivolemas (?), kiom
scias la ekziston de au' ne plac^ig^as pri:
        faro { ... } dum (...)
Mi c^iam uzas:
        dum (...) { ... }

La "faro-dum" (faru-dum) cirklo estas strangega.  G^i ne similas:
        se (...) { ... }
        por (...) { ... }       (for i := 1 to 5, estas "por", ne "dum", c^u?)
        dum (...) { ... }

Estas same c^i tial, mi ne plac^ig^as pri "ripeto-g^is" (ripetu-g^is)
cirklo en Paskalo.  Sed mi *neniam* uzis la egalaj^o en C-lingvo.

                -               -               -

     Someone suggested about:
        for (;;) { ... }        ->   for ever { ... }
        while (!...) { ... }    ->   until (...) { ... }

     I wonder how many know the existance of or don't like:
        do { ... } while (...)
I always use:
        while (...) { ... }

The do-while construct is *plain weird*.  It does not "look like":
        if (...) { ... }
        for (...) { ... }
        while (...) { ... }

It is for the same reason I don't like repeat-until in Pascal.  But I have
*never* used the equivalent in C.

                                G^ONG C^i-jau' (s-r[ic^]o) / Daniel Chung (Mr.)

 >                           G^ONG C^i-jau' (s-r[ic^]o) / Daniel Chung (Mr.)

[... apparent line noise deleted ...]

:      Someone suggested about:
:       for (;;) { ... }        ->   for ever { ... }
:       while (!...) { ... }    ->   until (...) { ... }
:
:      I wonder how many know the existance of or don't like:
:       do { ... } while (...)
: I always use:
:       while (...) { ... }

That's your preference.

: The do-while construct is *plain weird*.  It does not "look like":
:       if (...) { ... }
:       for (...) { ... }
:       while (...) { ... }
:
: It is for the same reason I don't like repeat-until in Pascal.  But I have
: *never* used the equivalent in C.

True, it doesn't look like the other constructs.  Nothing says that it
has to.  I use it whenever I need a sequence of instructions to be
executed AT LEAST once.  It saves me from having to possibly use an
extra flag variable to get the sequence started.

Btw, bye having "#define until(b) while(!(b))" you can now also do
"do { ... } until (...);"

                                * - * - *

Paul-Joseph "Dragon" de Werk        |        Carpe diem.
Department of Computer Science      | "First things first, but not
California State University, Fresno |  necessarily in that order."

.signature virus erradicated by NoSigVir

Andrew Scott

The syntax for the do statement is:

        "do" <statement> "while" "(" <expression> ")" ";"

The nested while can not possibly be the end of the do loop because no
statement has been parsed!  A quick check of a few of the compilers I
have available shows all of them parse this correctly.
----
Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH  45150-2789  513-576-2070

Life's a lot more fun when you're not responsible for your actions. -- Calvin

Hint:  do <statement> while(expression);

-sue

1. It looks different.  You may not see the problem with that, but
   occasionally I find it confusing to see

   do
   {
      a large piece of code
   }
   while(some condition);

   because it can be confused with

   {
      a large piece of code
   }
   while(some condition);

   which is obviously completely different, because the while() now
   indicates an infinite loop.

2. If the code is executed at least once, then it should be called an
   "until" loop, not a "while" loop (IMHO, the difference between "while"
   and "until" is not merely that the conditions for iterating are
   opposites, but also that "until" implies that the code must be executed
   before checking the condition, whereas "while" does not).  Anyway, why
   should "while(x) y;" and "do y; while(x);" do different things, when they
   appear (in English) to be saying more or less the same thing?

Ian Collier

     do {
        a large piece of code
     }while(some condition);

to avoid that problem.

Consider:

   while(*(p++)) ;

This is perfectly legal and useful (given a string context for example)
and is not infinite (if there is a terminating zero somewhere that is ...)
A infinite loop is typically either:

  for(;;) { ..... }

or

  while(1) { ..... }

depending on personal preference. Usually it isn't really infinite, of course.

Anders Andersson

  1. Always, always, ALWAYS put white space between adjacent
     loop constructs.  Always.

  2. Whenever you've got a large piece of code (particularly if
     it's inside a control flow construct), you should seriously
     consider putting it in its own function.

  3. Whenever you create a while with no body, it's a good idea
     to make that clear, either with a comment, or making the body
     consist of a "continue" statement.

  Don't let your understanding of English (or any other "human" language)
  overly effect your understanding of "computer" languages.  Computer
  languages, despite sharing a vague similarity to human languages, are
  quite different in nature.  Computer languages are made of (supposedly,
  anyway) precisely defined sentences with precisely defined semantics.
  In pretty much direct opposition, human languages have no fixed (or
  even fully definable at any one time) syntax, and the semantics is rife
  with ambiguities and unstated assumptions.

--
BLAZEMONGER -- if you don't SHOUT when you say it, you SUCK when you play it.

                                                Daniel Chung (Mr.)