1. for loop ?
- Posted by Bernie Ryan <bwryan at PCOM.NET> Jul 21, 1999
- 314 views
ROB Why don't you allow us to modify the loop counter in a for loop like "C" instead of using "BASIC's" step method ? Add this to the wish list. :) Bernie
2. Re: for loop ?
- Posted by Roderick Jackson <rjackson at CSIWEB.COM> Jul 21, 1999
- 307 views
Bernie Ryan wrote: >ROB > Why don't you allow us to modify the loop counter in a for loop > like "C" instead of using "BASIC's" step method ? > Add this to the wish list. :) >Bernie Oh boy, here comes the next wave of discussion... Rod
3. Re: for loop ?
- Posted by "Boehme, Gabriel" <gboehme at POBOXB1.HQ.MSMAIL.MUSICLAND.COM> Jul 21, 1999
- 307 views
Bernie Ryan wrote: >ROB > Why don't you allow us to modify the loop counter in a for loop > like "C" instead of using "BASIC's" step method ? Because that kind of thing would cause more problems than it would solve. When you come across a "for" loop in a Euphoria program, you are absolutely *guaranteed* that the counter is controlled solely by the "for" loop, and *cannot* be changed unexpectedly by the programmer. This can help greatly with debugging, since you *know* the loop counter can't be messed about with. If you really *do* need to modify your loop counter for whatever reason, then instead of this... for i = 1 to length(s) do -- whatever end for ..you can code it like this... integer i i = 1 while i <= length(s) do -- whatever i += 1 end while ..modifying the loop counter to your heart's content. Not as elegant, I know, but this way it is obvious that your loop counter is under the complete control of the programmer. Having these very strong distinctions between internally-controlled "for" loops and programmer-controlled "while" loops makes understanding and debugging the code much, much easier. Be seeing you, Gabriel Boehme
4. Re: for loop ?
- Posted by Bernie Ryan <bwryan at PCOM.NET> Jul 21, 1999
- 301 views
Gabriel you wrote >>Because that kind of thing would cause more problems than it would solve. >>When you come across a "for" loop in a Euphoria program, you are >>absolutely >>*guaranteed* that the counter is controlled solely by the "for" loop, and >>*cannot* be changed unexpectedly by the programmer. This can help greatly >>with debugging, since you *know* the loop counter can't be messed about >>with. I have enough concentration and am smart enough to keep track of what is happening in my for loops. I don't need no guarantees. Thank you but I didn't need training in how to use a while loop. Be seeing you, Bernie
5. Re: for loop ?
- Posted by "Boehme, Gabriel" <gboehme at POBOXB1.HQ.MSMAIL.MUSICLAND.COM> Jul 21, 1999
- 303 views
Bernie Ryan wrote: >I have enough concentration and am smart enough to keep track of what is >happening in my for loops. I don't need no guarantees. Still, it's nice to have them, all the same. >Thank you but I didn't need training in how to use a while loop. Just trying to help, my friend. Be seeing you, too, Gabriel Boehme