#define forever for(;;)

[Paul John Falstad]

In article <wb9lIa600awBI61Go2 at andrew.cmu.edu> jh4o+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey T. Hutzelman) writes:
>However, I use for(;;) all the time in place of while(1) with no
>problem.  And yes, I believe that it is defined that the loop will loop
>forever if the condition is not given.  Some one back me up on this, or
>tell me I;m wrong.

K&R2, p224: "A missing second expression [in a for] makes the implied
test equivalent to testing a non-zero constant."

>>> Apple // Forever!!! <<

What a terrifying thought.  :-)

--
Paul Falstad, pfalstad at phoenix.princeton.edu PLink:HYPNOS GEnie:P.FALSTAD
"Your attention please.  Would the owner of the Baader-Meinhof shoulder-bag
which has just exploded outside the terminal please pick up the white
courtesy phone."