Hi Kassen, I would not go scientific here... :) I just wrote down a line of code which I expected to work... However, I've never written down anything like: if() {} or while() {} which I suspect would give a C compiler error. My point is that the first and the third part of the for() statement can be omitted as for now (in ChucK). So I don't see a point why the second one shouldn't work the same way. Regards, Szilveszter aka Hillaby Kassen escribió:
Hey Szilveszter!
(you know, I'm a programmer myself :))
You wouldn't say! ;-)
I'm a C programmer, and in C, I often write an infinite loop like this: for(;;) {}
I prefer for() loops to while() loops, because for loops have the ability to step the cycle variable even if you put a continue; in them.
Ok, I see. This makes sense and it makes sense to follow C. I'm going to adopt that trick as well, though for infinite loops that will never break or continue I'll stick to "while(true)" as that's still more readable to me.
So, to be perfectly clear, (as a programmer I like to try and see the structure,) this particular case of a condition is a exception in that it can now be empty, with empty being seen as "not explicitly false and hence true" and this does not hold true for other conditions such as -say- empty clauses in "if" and "while" loops?
Thanks, Kas. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ chuck-dev mailing list chuck-dev@lists.cs.princeton.edu https://lists.cs.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/chuck-dev