home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!claird
- From: claird@NeoSoft.com (Cameron Laird)
- Subject: Re: ii/i/loops
- Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
- Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:26:16 GMT
- Message-ID: <BzEqru.671@NeoSoft.com>
- Keywords: C loops
- References: <1992Dec16.142023.24363@seq.uncwil.edu>
- Lines: 39
-
- In article <1992Dec16.142023.24363@seq.uncwil.edu> herbst@seq.uncwil.edu (R.T. Herbst) writes:
- >Using vi or your favorite editor, say, ed to find loop control
- >variables, like i 0r ii or j 0r jj is weird.
- >Why not
- >in
- >vi
- >do
- >/for
- >or /while
- >or /do
- >
- >all of the above are keywords and therefore
- >are not
- >allowed as variables.
- >herbst@seq.uncwil.edu
-
- Wow! This shows how far our understandings of the same
- words can diverge. What Mr. Herbst says above isn't the
- point I got from this at all.
- 1. "/for" doesn't work, 'cause it'll also match
- "fortran", "foreign", "reformat", ...
- 2. More crucially, when I go off looking for "i",
- it's usually because something has gone wrong
- with my loop, and I suspect that some third
- party is off in a corner abusing one of my
- variables ("Look! 'i = TRUE;', where they
- probably meant 'in = TRUE;'."). All the folks
- I know who ask their editors to search for "i"
- are doing so because they want to find the things
- about which they do *not* already know, that is,
- *not* the well-controlled loops and such.
-
- This is surely a dead horse I'm beating, but it's interesting
- to me to realize how far apart we can get in so short a span.
- --
-
- Cameron Laird
- claird@Neosoft.com (claird%Neosoft.com@uunet.uu.net) +1 713 267 7966
- claird@litwin.com (claird%litwin.com@uunet.uu.net) +1 713 996 8546
-