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 :-) }