Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tekig4.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!tekig5!tekig4!rosalia From: rosalia@tekig4.UUCP (Mark Galassi) Newsgroups: net.micro Subject: Re: Re: Who wants Ada? Message-ID: <113@tekig4.UUCP> Date: Mon, 3-Jun-85 21:24:28 EDT Article-I.D.: tekig4.113 Posted: Mon Jun 3 21:24:28 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 06:08:54 EDT References: <11113@brl-tgr.UUCP> <22700006@gypsy.UUCP> Reply-To: rosalia@reed.UUCP (Mark Galassi) Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR Lines: 24 Summary: What is this I see? In article <22700006@gypsy.UUCP> emery@gypsy.UUCP writes: > >for instance, consider looping through the characters of a string.... > > for (a_char = *str_ptr++, !a_char;) > > for char_index in a_string'length loop > a_char := a_string(char_index); > >Which do you understand better? > > Dave Emery > {princeton!ihnp4}!siemens!emery It is hard to understand what side the person here took, and what the "for ... " statement is supposed to mean. It certainly does not mean anything in C, but maybe he meant: while (!(a_char = *str_ptr++)) or for ( ; !(a_char = *str_ptr++); ) in which case it is a very normal, common and understandable C instruction. Much more readable than the stuff underneath. Mark Galassi ...!tektronix!reed!rosalia { These opinions are mine and should be everybody else's :-) }