On 2/7/07, steve uurtamo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And of course don't forget about this no_variable_in_for thing...
i'll have to read up on what you're describing.
The following pseudocode block
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
... code ...
}
// i's lifetime ends after the for loop does
is valid in just about any version of C++ and in the 1999 ISO C standard
(also known as C99), but it is not valid in most older C standards. (Some
older versions of gcc would accept this code but assign the wrong lifetime
(according to the standard) to variable i. If you want to test this code
with gcc, then use the -std=c99 flag, which, as of quite recently at least,
was not enabled by default.) There are at least a couple other C++-isms --
offhand, the // single-line comment form and variable declarations in the
middle of code blocks come to mind -- that are also valid in C99 but invalid
in at least some of the older C standards.
I'm not trying to run off on a language standards tangent! I just feared
that we might be headed towards one anyway, and I wanted to make sure the
information in it was not 8 years out of date.
Sorry, now back to go (I hope)...
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
