for loop, two different types

[vippstar]

Hello comp.lang.c

I had to write a for() loop with two temporary variables for it.
What I *usually* do is define the variables at the top so it works in
C89 as well.
But I realized that it just can't be done in the C99 'for' loop!

Assume I want two variables, int i and size_t size.

for(int i, size_t size; ...; ...)

is a syntax error

Is there a way to do this? I'm not talking about putting these two
types in a struct.

Assuming this can't be done, isn't the addition of defining variables
in the first part of the for loop in C99 useless, or at least
"incomplete "?

[santosh]

vi******@gmail. com wrote:

Hello comp.lang.c

I had to write a for() loop with two temporary variables for it.
What I *usually* do is define the variables at the top so it works in
C89 as well.
But I realized that it just can't be done in the C99 'for' loop!

Assume I want two variables, int i and size_t size.

for(int i, size_t size; ...; ...)

is a syntax error

Is there a way to do this? I'm not talking about putting these two
types in a struct.

Assuming this can't be done, isn't the addition of defining variables
in the first part of the for loop in C99 useless, or at least
"incomplete "?

Well you can't do:

int i, size_t size;

anywhere else either.

[Eric Sosman]

vi******@gmail. com wrote:

Hello comp.lang.c

I had to write a for() loop with two temporary variables for it.
What I *usually* do is define the variables at the top so it works in
C89 as well.
But I realized that it just can't be done in the C99 'for' loop!

Assume I want two variables, int i and size_t size.

for(int i, size_t size; ...; ...)

is a syntax error

Is there a way to do this? I'm not talking about putting these two
types in a struct.

{
int i;
size_t size;
for (i=0, size=42; ...) {
... loop body ...
}
}

Assuming this can't be done, isn't the addition of defining variables
in the first part of the for loop in C99 useless,

Yes. It doesn't sing, dance, play the mandolin, or bring
me breakfast in bed. It doesn't do everything one could desire,
so off with its head!

or at least
"incomplete "?

<Shrug. Define "complete," and then we can all have fun
mocking you for the things you overlooked. ("That silly vippstar!
His so-called `complete for' doesn't permit function definitions
inside the increment portion. What a shortsighted moron, tee-hee!")

--
Er*********@sun .com

[vippstar]

On Jul 2, 7:08 pm, Eric Sosman <Eric.Sos...@su n.comwrote:

vipps...@gmail. com wrote:

Assuming this can't be done, isn't the addition of defining variables
in the first part of the for loop in C99 useless,
or at least
"incomplete "?

<Shrug. Define "complete," and then we can all have fun
mocking you for the things you overlooked. ("That silly vippstar!
His so-called `complete for' doesn't permit function definitions
inside the increment portion. What a shortsighted moron, tee-hee!")

I guess I'm just looking for things I found in other languages that in
C wouldn't make sense :-)
(I'm talking about the common lisp 'LOOP' macro)

Regardless - this particular problem wasn't important to me, I was
just curious why such thing wasn't allowed and now I believe I
understand.

[santosh]

vi******@gmail. com wrote:

On Jul 2, 7:08 pm, Eric Sosman <Eric.Sos...@su n.comwrote:

>vipps...@gmail .com wrote:

Assuming this can't be done, isn't the addition of defining
variables in the first part of the for loop in C99 useless,
or at least
"incomplete "?

<Shrug. Define "complete," and then we can all have fun
mocking you for the things you overlooked. ("That silly vippstar!
His so-called `complete for' doesn't permit function definitions
inside the increment portion. What a shortsighted moron, tee-hee!")

I guess I'm just looking for things I found in other languages that in
C wouldn't make sense :-)
(I'm talking about the common lisp 'LOOP' macro)

Regardless - this particular problem wasn't important to me, I was
just curious why such thing wasn't allowed and now I believe I
understand.

I think C99 allows a single declaration in the initialisation part of
the for loop. What you wanted were multiple declarations, which would
require multiple statements, and that is a syntax error in a for loop.
It would have been nice if it were legal though - no need for ugly
blocks.

[Ron Ford]

On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 08:16:33 -0700 (PDT), vi******@gmail. com posted:

Hello comp.lang.c

I had to write a for() loop with two temporary variables for it.
What I *usually* do is define the variables at the top so it works in
C89 as well.
But I realized that it just can't be done in the C99 'for' loop!

Assume I want two variables, int i and size_t size.

for(int i, size_t size; ...; ...)

What happens in the body of the loop with i and size such that your syntax
would be different than garden-variety nested loops?
--
Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of Jackals by
Jackasses.
H. L. Mencken