foreach

[Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d]

On 2014-06-13 20:03, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> 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.

I don't agree. How many other statements allow their parts to be 
optional. "while" does not, "if" does not.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg