At 3:34 PM +0200 11/10/01, Damien Doligez wrote:
>  >At 2:47 PM +0200 11/10/01, Berke Durak wrote:
>
>>>Do you really pretend that ``C-style for loops'' have ``self-evident
>>>readability merits'' ?! My opinion is that ```C-style'' loop syntax
>>>IS unreadable, ununderstandable and unprovable. How many people using
>>>C know the _exact_ semantics of :
>>>
>>>	for(exp1;expr2;expr3){expr4}
>
>>From: Bruce Hoult <bruce@hoult.org>
>
>>Sure, it's easy:
>>
>>    {
>>       exp1;
>>       while (expr2){
>>           expr4;
>>           expr3;
>>       }
>>    }
>>
>>It's damn ugly, though, and with much unnecessary repetition of the
>>control variable in simple cases.
>
>It's incorrect, too.  A "continue" statement within expr4 doesn't do
>the same thing in both versions.

I didn't include the "continue" semantics because:

1) the original example didn't have one
2) it requires a GOTO.  Feel free to insert a label before expr2 if you insist.

-- Bruce
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr