🚀 go-pugleaf

In <mferrel-0911951136400001@sa-1en64.sonoma.edu>,
	Mike Ferrel <mferrel@zippy.sonoma.edu> writes:
> In article <sjcDHqMKM.MBG@netcom.com>, sjc@netcom.com (Steven Correll)
> wrote:
> > Must portable programs do this?
> >         for (unsigned i0 = 0; ...; ...)
> >           ...
> >         for (unsigned i1 = 0; ...; ...)
> >           ...
> How about
>       unsigned i;
>       for(i = 0; ...; ...)
>          ...
>       for(i = 0; ...; ...)
>          ...

How about:

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

Gives the advantages of the new style scoping barring an annoying
extra level of indentation and is portable between compilers.  That's
what I've used until now -- the old style led to too many annoying 
problems when rearranging code.

Phil
--
not speaking for ICL
---
[ 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. ]