Re: while (1) vs. for ( ;; )
- From: "Charlie Gordon" <news@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 23:09:58 +0200
"Keith Thompson" <kst-u@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:lnk6i4rojv.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Charlie Gordon" <news@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > "akarl" <fusionfive@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:glPQe.32705$d5.187496@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [...]
> > You are right, but things are a bit more complicated than this: pretending
to
> > clean up the C language is doomed.
> > Just look at :
> >
> > #include <stdbool.h>
> > #include <ctype.h>
> > ...
> > while (isdigit(*s) == true) {
> > ... sometime works, sometimes not ?...
> > }
>
> That's solved by following a simple rule: never compare a value to a
> literal true or false. Comparing to true or false is both error-prone
> and useless. If an expression is a condition, just use it as a
> condition.
>
> The existence of type bool doesn't mean you can't use
>
> while (isdigit(*s)) {
> ...
> }
I just meant to stress the point, that the C language is full of traps and
pitfalls... giving it a java flavor doesn't fix them.
Chqrlie.
.
- 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: Chris McDonald
- Re: while (1) vs. for ( ;; )
- From: Ben Pfaff
- Re: while (1) vs. for ( ;; )
- From: Chris McDonald
- Re: while (1) vs. for ( ;; )
- From: Charlie Gordon
- Re: while (1) vs. for ( ;; )
- From: akarl
- Re: while (1) vs. for ( ;; )
- From: Charlie Gordon
- Re: while (1) vs. for ( ;; )
- From: Keith Thompson
- while (1) vs. for ( ;; )
- Prev by Date: Re: while (1) vs. for ( ;; )
- 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
|