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