Re: while (1) vs. for ( ;; )
- From: pete <pfiland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:34:43 GMT
Tim Rentsch wrote:
> I was surprised at how many people reported that a compiler
> they use issues a warning for 'while(1)' and gave that as a
> reason for giving preference to the 'for(;;)' form. It
> seems like a choice should be made on the basis of what's a
> better expression (lower defect rate, higher productivity,
> better understood by the readers), not on the basis of some
> errant warning message.
The warning is the tie breaker.
There is no difference in defect rate,
productivity, or understanding by the readers.
--
pete
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: while (1) vs. for ( ;; )
- From: Tim Rentsch
- Re: while (1) vs. for ( ;; )
- References:
- while (1) vs. for ( ;; )
- From: Michael B Allen
- Re: while (1) vs. for ( ;; )
- From: Tim Rentsch
- while (1) vs. for ( ;; )
- Prev by Date: Re: Why doesn't strrstr() exist?
- Next by Date: Re: Problem in Strdup()
- Previous by thread: Re: while (1) vs. for ( ;; )
- Next by thread: Re: while (1) vs. for ( ;; )
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
