From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <676c3c4f0603011022p6856c319vfea6d7bb2c8fd955@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed,  1 Mar 2006 13:22:23 -0500
From: "Richard Bilson" <rcbilson@gmail.com>
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: <61438dea6b0a264f8225382d0c6e2d51@9netics.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20060301175613.GA826@augusta.math.psu.edu>
	<61438dea6b0a264f8225382d0c6e2d51@9netics.com>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 086fb256-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

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 =3D 0, ...) ...; }

This (the way you like it) is the way it was eventually standardized
in C++. Any modern compiler that I have used does it this way.