🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <sjcDHqMKM.MBG@netcom.com>, Steven Correll <sjc@netcom.com> wrote:
>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; ...; ...)
>	  ...


It is, of course, still permissible in both cases to write this:

	unsigned i;
	for (i = 0; ...; ...)
	  ...
	for (i = 0; ...; ...)
	  ...
-- 
Randy Oxentenko           | It is foolish to criticize.  There is little
rdo@elt.com               | point in fretting over the fact that God has
http://www.dfw.net/~rox/  | not seen fit to distribute evenly the gift
Opinions are not from ELT | of intelligence.           -- John Wanamaker

---
[ 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. ]