Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site denelcor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!hao!denelcor!neal
From: neal@denelcor.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: little quiz
Message-ID: <363@denelcor.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 22-Mar-84 13:10:18 EST
Article-I.D.: denelcor.363
Posted: Thu Mar 22 13:10:18 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 23-Mar-84 21:40:30 EST
References: <9031@arizona.UUCP>
Organization: Denelcor, Aurora, CO
Lines: 37

**************************************************************************

>While we are discussing C, how many people believe that
>
>        for (initial; test; update) statement;
>
>is ALWAYS equivalent to
>
>        initial;
>        while (test) {
>                statement;
>                update;
>                }
>
>how many people can cite the exception to the above rule?  (ie, one
>clearcut case where they produce different results).

	Are you referring to the fact that if "test" is omitted, it is
equivalent to 

	...
	while(1)
	...

Otherwise, K&R says it's the same (p. 202)

		K&R says it
		I believe it
		That settles it	:-)

	Seriously, I am wondering if I broke my compiler by making it work
that way.

			Regards,
				Neal Weidenhofer
				Denelcor, Inc.
				!denelcor!neal