Re: Behavior when a do-iterator is changed
- From: glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:16:07 +0000 (UTC)
steve <kargls@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(snip)
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.
It just occured to me that I am not sure of the requirements in
terms of not changing the value. Is:
I=I+0
allowed or not?
-- glen
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Behavior when a do-iterator is changed
- From: robin
- Re: Behavior when a do-iterator is changed
- From: nmm1
- 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
- Re: Behavior when a do-iterator is changed
- From: steve
- Behavior when a do-iterator is changed
- Prev by Date: ๑۩๑۩๑ cheap *** pants belts bikinis underwear at www.ecyaya.com
- 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):