🚀 go-pugleaf

Steven Correll wrote:
|> 
|> 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; ...; ...)
|>           ...

If you really want to write programs for both old and new compilers, what's
wrong with the following?:

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

/Robert

-- 
     Robert Buren
     erarobu@era-t.ericsson.se

---
[ 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. ]