From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Wed,  1 Mar 2006 23:37:18 -0500
From: "Andrew R. Reiter" <arr@watson.org>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] A Plan 9 C request....
In-Reply-To: <3e1162e60603012027q5ca36676qe25c6fdafd5cb0b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060301233606.M95970@fledge.watson.org>
References: <512d50b944dded9e4273ce3d066f52b7@swtch.com>
	<fcb1fb436756a878833fc14876365542@9netics.com>
	<3e1162e60603012027q5ca36676qe25c6fdafd5cb0b@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0970f462-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025



On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, David Leimbach wrote:

:On 3/1/06, Skip Tavakkolian <9nut@9netics.com> wrote:
:> >> when it was added to C++, i "felt" that the scope
:> >> of 'i' wasn't natural; it goes beyond 'for's closure.
:> >> i like a behavior like this:
:> >>
:> >>      { int i; for (i = 0, ...) ...; }
:> >
:> > so did the c++ standards committee and the c99 committee.
:> > both have declared that
:> >
:> >       for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++);
:> >
:> > now means
:> >
:> >       { int i; for(i=0; i<10; i++); }
:>
:> i didn't know. wow?!
:> my vc6 is officially an antique.
:>
:>
:
:
:VC *anything* should not be seen as an implementation of any standards :).
:

As a person who's done porting of embedded systems between compilers and
just working with VC, gcc, icc, et al, in general, I couldn't agree more!

$0.02
Andrew

--
arr@watson.org