foreach

[H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 10:46:17AM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
> for(;;) is a special case with no real benefit IMHO. It's a loop whose
> condition is implicitly true rather than actually having a condition
> in it.  IMHO, it should required to be at least for(;1;) or
> for(;true;), since those don't require a special case.

I disagree, it's not a special case. It's simply a logical consequence
of each part of the for-loop being optional. Prohibiting for(;;) would
*be* a special case, because then you're saying that each component of
the for-loop is optional, *except* when all of them are omitted.

(Not to mention, for(;1;) is truly an eyesore, far worse than for(;;).)


> And if that's what you're doing, you might as well just use while(1),
> since there's no point in using for over while if you're not doing
> anything in the other two parts of the for loop.

Again I disagree. Using for(;;) is completely natural, because the
definition of for() says that each of the 3 parts are optional. Since an
infinite loop loops *unconditionally*, it doesn't have any loop
conditions, so the most natural thing to do is to use a construct where
the loop condition can be omitted -- i.e., for(;;).

On the contrary, using while() here is unnatural because while() expects
a loop condition, but since an infinite loop doesn't have one, you have
to artificially invent a constant value to stick into the loop condition
in order to satisfy the syntax of the while-loop. I find this to be
quite unnatural.


T

-- 
Designer clothes: how to cover less by paying more.