Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!steinmetz!ge-dab!codas!killer!richardh
From: richardh@killer.UUCP (Richard Hargrove)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: How are local vars allocated?
Message-ID: <2230@killer.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Nov-87 09:29:17 EST
Article-I.D.: killer.2230
Posted: Fri Nov 27 09:29:17 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 30-Nov-87 00:43:48 EST
References: <9367@mimsy.UUCP> <1633@megatest.UUCP> <2218@killer.UUCP>
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas
Lines: 35
Summary: I was wrong

In article <2218@killer.UUCP>, richardh@killer.UUCP (Richard Hargrove) writes:
> In article <1987Nov22.085210.20641@sq.uucp>, msb@sq.uucp (Mark Brader) writes:
> > There have been several followups regarding the code:
> > (deleted)
> > The above requests that a new variable "k" be created, and destroyed
> > again, on each iteration of the loop.  Since it is destroyed each time,
> 
> No it doesn't! It requests that a variable "k" be allocated and be visible
> 
> > 
> > But the value of "k" is NOT guaranteed to be retained from one iteration
> > to the next, and you must not assume it will be.  If you want that, you
> 
> Yes it is! The variable's scope is the block in which it is defined.
> 

Time for some humble pie along with all the other Thanksgiving deserts. I
am obviously in error. If my claim above were true then objects declared
local to the block would be visible to the loop control code, which they
obviously aren't.

Hope I don't need too much flame retardant.

richard hargrove
...!killer!richardh
-------------------

Found on a Post-It attached to the front of a terminal in a deserted office
in downtown Wichita:

	"Aunty Em,
	 Hate you. Hate Kansas. Took the dog.
	 Dorothy"

---------------------------------------------