Re: Behavior when a do-iterator is changed
- From: steve <kargls@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:37:11 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 20, 1:37 am, "James Van Buskirk" <not_va...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So I'm still having problems with this standard conforming code
over here in Win-64 land...
Your code is nonconforming. See my other post. The standard forbids
a program that causes a do-variable to become redefined or undefined
while the do-loop is active. Your program is clearly redefining the
do-variable.
--
steve
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Behavior when a do-iterator is changed
- From: glen herrmannsfeldt
- Re: Behavior when a do-iterator is changed
- From: James Van Buskirk
- Re: Behavior when a do-iterator is changed
- References:
- Behavior when a do-iterator is changed
- From: John
- Re: Behavior when a do-iterator is changed
- From: James Van Buskirk
- Re: Behavior when a do-iterator is changed
- From: JB
- Re: Behavior when a do-iterator is changed
- From: James Van Buskirk
- Behavior when a do-iterator is changed
- Prev by Date: Friday-afternoon
- Next by Date: Re: Friday-afternoon
- Previous by thread: Re: Behavior when a do-iterator is changed
- Next by thread: Re: Behavior when a do-iterator is changed
- Index(es):