On Thu, 8 May 2003 15:06:02 +0300, "John Torjo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Unfortunately, we can't use the do-while(0) idiom, since we don't know when while(0) will be ;-)
Oops, no. That's not the problem. The problem is that I read Daniel's reply out of context and too absent-mindedly :-) I thought it was something like
if (false) ; else
whereas he is really testing for a condition
if(expr)...
However, if you are going to abort at the end (or throw, but I don't want to enter in this matter) you can simply replace 'if' with 'while':
But that does not give you any benefit at all, does it? The do-while-idiom is very different from the while-version you suggest. It's IMHO the only idiom that forces the user to add a semicolon, but we actually don't want to do that here. The user should be allowed to add (i) or other stuff. I think that the 'if' (or 'while', but that's not a difference) is the best we can do here.
Regards, Daniel
-- Daniel Frey
aixigo AG - financial training, research and technology Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany fon: +49 (0)241 936737-42, fax: +49 (0)241 936737-99 eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], web: http://www.aixigo.de
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
