4 ms·

I’m used to seeing for(;;) in C code but I disagree that it’s conceptually similar - the opposite actually. The for() syntax is already inconsistent with three

by timmb 4y ago

I’m used to seeing for(;;) in C code but I disagree that it’s conceptually similar - the opposite actually. The for() syntax is already inconsistent with three expressions being interpreted as statement;guard-expression;statement. There’s no other occasion I can think of where an expression becomes vacuously true by being omitted. If it were conceptually coherent you’d write for(;true;). I guess maybe the reason they made C accept for(;;) but not while() is because while() might confuse a compiler by looking like a function call.

sgtnoodle 4y ago
You're arguing syntax, I'm arguing semantics. When the intent is to have the program loop unconditionally, omitting a condition seems more appropriate than providing a tautological condition. Syntax wise, it doesn't really matter. "for" just happens to be the keyword that allows omitting the condition. "While" effectively means "during which". "For" on the other hand has a significantly more flexible meaning; it seems reasonable to me that the for keyword would be more flexible. Syntax wise, the most explicit thing to have in a language would be a "forever" keyword of some sort.