Re: [9fans] A Plan 9 C request....

[rog@vitanuova.com]

> 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, ...) ...; }

when i first started to use Limbo, which has a similar looking
idiom, i thought the same.

	for(i := 0; i < 10; i++) {
	}

but actually, having the variable
available outside the scope is so often useful,
e.g.
	for(i := 0; i < end; i++)
		if(sometest())
			break;
	if(i == end)
		fall_through_condition();

that i now think the non-scoping behaviour is the right thing.

i'm not sure that it's worth adding to plan 9 C though.