🚀 go-pugleaf

What was the rationale for this change, which from here looks quite
gratuitous? It's reminiscent of the old Pascal rule that the value of a
loop index was undefined after the loop exited; that was apparently
motivated by the belief that compilers were too stupid to figure out
on a case-by-case when a value could safely be killed.

The change makes it difficult to write programs that will work in both old
compilers and new ones while implementors scurry to catch up with the
ever-inventive committee. This technique won't work in current compilers:

	for (unsigned i = 0; ...; ...)
	  ...
	for (i = 0; ...; ...)
	  ...

And this won't work in older ones:

	for (unsigned i = 0; ...; ...)
	  ...
	for (unsigned i = 0; ...; ...)
	  ...

Must portable programs do this?

	for (unsigned i0 = 0; ...; ...)
	  ...
	for (unsigned i1 = 0; ...; ...)
	  ...
-- 
Steven Correll == PO Box 66625, Scotts Valley, CA 95067 == sjc@netcom.com
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]