James [on his mailserver] wrote:
> why doesn't this work:
>
> {
> int c;
>
> for (c=0; c==9; c++)
> /* something */
> }
>
> i tried it once and it didn't work as expected (i can't remember what
> happened, it either looped for ever, or just skipped it).
It will never execute the body of the loop.
for (c=0; c==9; c++)
<something>
is (sort of) equivalent to
c=0;
while (c==9)
{
<something>
c++;
}
except that the former will always execute the `c++', even if
`continue' is executed.
> and, is this a Bad Thing...
>
> {
> for (int c=0; c<10; c++)
> /* stuff */
> }
No. This is the usual way to write `FOR i = 0 TO 9' type loops.
> And here's something that my C Programming tutor does:
>
> main ()
> {
> /* whatever */
> exit (0);
> }
>
> shouldn't it really be
>
> int main ()
> {
> /* things */
> exit (0);
>
> return (0);
> }
It should be
int main(void)
{
/* things */
return 0;
}
Using exit() from within main() is redundant. And even if you use
exit(), you should still have a `return' statement. The compiler can't
necessarily know that exit() will cause a non-local exit.
> to conform to the ANSI C standard? doing gcc -Wall picks this up (type of
> main defaults to int) and i know this is just not done:
>
> void main (void)
> {
> /* things */
> exit (0);
> }
Allowing main() to return void is a gcc extension.
> someone recommend a good C reference book (reference, not tutorial...)
The C Programming Language (2nd Edition)
Brian W Kernighan & Dennis M Ritchie
Prentice Hall
Note that this doesn't cover style. You can't really have a
`reference' book for style.
--
Glynn Clements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
