From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id PAA26425; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 15:12:09 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f
Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA26442 for <caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr>; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 15:12:08 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from www.image-acquire.com (valkyrie.image-acquire.com [207.71.8.230])
	by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f9BDC7b11891
	for <caml-list@inria.fr>; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 15:12:07 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (203-79-84-44.adsl.paradise.net.nz [203.79.84.44])
	by www.image-acquire.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA14041;
	Thu, 11 Oct 2001 08:11:10 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: bruce@www.hoult.org
Message-Id: <a05101013b7eb49a70a27@[192.168.0.2]>
In-Reply-To: <20011011144733.A3985@gogol.zorgol>
References: <004001c15218$29c42e20$0b01a8c0@mit.edu>
 <20011011144733.A3985@gogol.zorgol>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 02:11:01 +1300
To: Berke Durak <berke@altern.org>, Jeff Henrikson <jehenrik@yahoo.com>
From: Bruce Hoult <bruce@hoult.org>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] C style for loop
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr
Precedence: bulk

At 2:47 PM +0200 11/10/01, Berke Durak wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 01:47:07AM -0400, Jeff Henrikson wrote:
>
>>  Okay, so maybe I should be more specific about what I want in a
>>  "C-style for loop."  Its readablity merits are hopefully self
>>  evident.  Well, unless you're a compulsive CPS addict who wishes
>>  even his grocery list could be written to tail recurse. . .
>
>[...]
>
>Do you really pretend that ``C-style for loops'' have ``self-evident
>readability merits'' ?! My opinion is that ```C-style'' loop syntax
>IS unreadable, ununderstandable and unprovable. How many people using
>C know the _exact_ semantics of :
>
>	for(exp1;expr2;expr3){expr4}

Sure, it's easy:

   {
      exp1;
      while (expr2){
          expr4;
          expr3;
      }
   }

It's damn ugly, though, and with much unnecessary repetition of the 
control variable in simple cases.


>I never manage to remember if expr3 is evaluated if expr2 is always
>zero.

No.  See above.



>  However with
>
>	for i = 0 to 33 do
>		f i
>	done
>
>the ONLY little point about which you MIGHT hesitate is : does f 33
>get called or does the loop stop at 32 ?

Dylan makes has explicit versions:

   for (i from 0 to 33)
   end

   for (i from 0 below 33)
   end

-- Bruce
-------------------
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs  FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr  Archives: http://caml.inria.fr