Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site eagle.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!eagle!mjs
From: mjs@eagle.UUCP (M.J.Shannon)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: for <==> while  (an exception)
Message-ID: <1285@eagle.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Jul-85 16:29:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: eagle.1285
Posted: Tue Jul 16 16:29:49 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 04:35:06 EDT
References: <200@ur-cvsvax.UUCP> <314@dcl-cs.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Summit, NJ
Lines: 23

> In article <200@ur-cvsvax.UUCP> bill@ur-cvsvax.UUCP (Bill Vaughn) writes:
> >Section 3.5 of K&R (p. 56) states that the 'for' loop and 'while' loop
> >can be made equivalent i.e.
[ elided to save net cost ]
> >Are there any other exceptions?
> 
> Here's another ...
> An infinite "for" loop is given by "for (;;) statement".  The equivalent
> "while" expression is, logically, "while () statement".  As this fails to
> compile, one has to resort to "while (1) statement"; which is less efficient
> in most cases as code is generated to test if "1" equals "0".
> -- 
> UUCP:	...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!stephen

To reiterate, the specification of the C language (at the time) is in the
Reference Manual, which is at the end of K&R.  The content of the rest of the
book is meant to be a tutorial.  What may seem logical conclusions from the
tutorial are spelled out (or disspelled) in great detail in the Reference
Manual.
-- 
	Marty Shannon
UUCP:	ihnp4!eagle!mjs
Phone:	+1 201 522 6063