Re: while (1) vs. for ( ;; )
- From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:08:53 GMT
Keith Thompson <kst-u@xxxxxxx> writes:
[...]
> In another thread, I've railed against "if (0 = a)", even though it's
> semantically identical to "if (a == 0)". And yes, I'm taking the
> opposite side of this argument. The difference, which is largely in
> my head, is that I don't find either "while (1)" or "for (;;)" to be
> ugly or jarring.
Of course, I meant "if (0 == a)", not "if (0 = a)".
Gloating over the irony of that typo is left as an exercise for the
reader.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@xxxxxxx <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: while (1) vs. for ( ;; )
- From: akarl
- Re: while (1) vs. for ( ;; )
- References:
- while (1) vs. for ( ;; )
- From: Michael B Allen
- Re: while (1) vs. for ( ;; )
- From: Tim Rentsch
- Re: while (1) vs. for ( ;; )
- From: pete
- Re: while (1) vs. for ( ;; )
- From: Tim Rentsch
- Re: while (1) vs. for ( ;; )
- From: Keith Thompson
- while (1) vs. for ( ;; )
- Prev by Date: Re: low-level question
- Next by Date: Re: while (1) vs. for ( ;; )
- Previous by thread: Re: while (1) vs. for ( ;; )
- Next by thread: Re: while (1) vs. for ( ;; )
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|