| Michael Witten:
|
| > -iterate:
| > + for(;;) {
| > if (*p) {
| > if ((output && (*p)->url_write) || (!output && (*p)->url_read)) {
| > *opaque = (void *)p;
| > @@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ iterate:
| > goto done;
| > }
| > ++p;
| > - goto iterate;
| > + }
|
| Lynn:
|
| > while (1) please. Let's not add more for (;;) loops.
This is just an intermediate patch.
Future patches populate the slots or clauses of the 'for' statement,
and if these small patches are squashed together (or relegated by
a proper merge commit), then the 'for(;;)' will no longer be part
of the master history.
Sincerely,
Michael Witten
PS
Long ago, I read someone's view on the debate between the options:
* while (1)
* for (;;)
That person remarked that he reads "(;;)" as "ever", so that the
whole statement "for (;;)" reads as "forever"; in addition, it is
1 character shorter than "while (1)".
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
