Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!cottrell@nbs-vms.ARPA
From: cottrell@nbs-vms.ARPA (COTTRELL, JAMES)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Forever
Message-ID: <1825@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 1-Oct-85 14:47:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.1825
Posted: Tue Oct  1 14:47:51 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 3-Oct-85 06:28:34 EDT
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 28

/* Old business department. Doug Gwyn sez:
> I think this illustrates one of the potential problems with
> hiding the actual language underneath definitions.  If the
> loop REALLY continues "for ever", then it is probably not a
> good algorithm.

There are *lots* of `forever' type loops. How about process
control applications, or communication boxes? These processes
*never* exit (they are forcibly shutdown by pulling the plug,
rebooting, or `exit' somewhere in a called funxion).

> Possibly
 	#define	repeatedly	for ( ; ; )
> would be a better fit to English.

`Repeatedly' vs `forever'? Sounds like quibbling to me.

> But (unlike the Boolean
> data type) the extra effort of becoming familiar with this
> usage does not seem to be adequately repaid in clearer code.
> (Of course that's a judgement call..)

I agree. My `handy.h' usually include a forever define which is forever 
unused. I just never remember to type it instead of `for(;;)'.

	jim		cottrell@nbs
*/
------