From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <b9edcf2c8fe89ce6f869f1245e0237f9@vitanuova.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] A Plan 9 C request....
Date: Wed,  1 Mar 2006 18:17:57 +0000
From: rog@vitanuova.com
In-Reply-To: <61438dea6b0a264f8225382d0c6e2d51@9netics.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 08358c0c-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> 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.