On 9/12/16, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> My guess as to what this means is that it is precisely equivalent to
> for x++; x < n; x++ {
>
I can't argue with your analysis, it seems flawless and I didn't spot that.
I'm going to go back where I thought continue would be the only
sensible option and
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 9:27 PM, Lucio wrote:
> I threw away my efforts to explain my idea, lucidity seems to elude me.
>
> Instead, here's the gist:
>
>for continue; x < n; x++ {
> ...
>}
>
> Currently, the compiler rejects "continue" in the initialisation field and,
> given that it'
I threw away my efforts to explain my idea, lucidity seems to elude me.
Instead, here's the gist:
for continue; x < n; x++ {
...
}
Currently, the compiler rejects "continue" in the initialisation field and,
given that it's called "initialisation", that makes sense.
If instead the "c
