The point here is not whether the defense is valid, but rather that I defended it against what I saw as an ivalid complaint despite not liking the language. Be just.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Andrew Rowley [and...@blackhillsoftware.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2023 7:02 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Stop the ragging on COBOL please [was: RE: ASM call by value] On 28/03/2023 9:34 pm, Seymour J Metz wrote: > I once found myself defending the common idiom > > for (;;) { > foo; > } > > as a perfectly clear DO FOREVER. I'm not sure that it is completely clear, it depends on knowledge if whether the empty statement evaluates as true or false - or just a guess that do forever is more likely than do never... Personally, I prefer something like: while (TRUE) { } -- Andrew Rowley Black Hill Software ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
