3 ms·
All loops run the risk of never exiting; it's basically how loops work. This construct seems highly artificial. Perhaps it's an issue in some other less artifi
by arp242 4y ago
All loops run the risk of never exiting; it's basically how loops work.
This construct seems highly artificial. Perhaps it's an issue in some other less artificial cases, but the change does solve a high number of common errors, so overall it seems like a net win. I don't really see the problem here.
- tapirl 4y agoThe change for "for-range" loops generally has positive effects (except that it will hurt performance sometimes). But the change for "for;;" loops has many bad effects.