Quote :

"for(;!f.EOF() ; ) { ... } "

Its called a motherfucking while loop

[Edited on May 8, 2008 at 7:33 PM. Reason : rofl at crazycode]

5/8/2008 7:29:04 PM

5/8/2008 7:37:19 PM

Some people use For loops for everything. I use While (or Do as syntax may decree) loops for everything. They are functionally equivalent.

5/8/2008 8:33:43 PM

functionally equivalent, yes. legibly equivalent, in the OP's case, no way.

5/8/2008 9:44:21 PM

i prefer GOTO

5/8/2008 10:08:51 PM

recursion with a counter

5/8/2008 10:48:11 PM

i've been made of fun of for exclusively using while loops...

never really used for seriously

5/9/2008 12:15:09 AM

i use reflection for everything

5/9/2008 12:19:57 AM

I might be very wrong, but I always divided whether I used for/and while depending on
1. whether i needed access to the counter
2. whether i'm testing for a condition that is not strictly a counter (EOF, hasNext() exists() whatever)

5/9/2008 11:44:54 AM

that sounds about right

5/9/2008 11:51:05 AM

while(1) {
sleep(5);
}

5/9/2008 12:01:24 PM

^^^^^^^ My supervisor has said he would fire someone on the spot for using a GOTO. I know the pain of dealing with their code, we usually get paid to fix it

5/9/2008 4:08:04 PM

if ( someboolean == true)
{
return true;
}
else if (someboolean == false)
{
return false;
}

5/9/2008 5:12:19 PM

Quote :

"I might be very wrong, but I always divided whether I used for/and while depending on 1. whether i needed access to the counter 2. whether i'm testing for a condition that is not strictly a counter (EOF, hasNext() exists() whatever)"

Thats the normal logic which almost everyone uses, which makes reading something like that a pain.

Also, do while loops are a pain in the ass as well, what is this 1989?

5/9/2008 6:09:04 PM

i dont see that big of a deal with using a post-conditional with instead of a pre-conditional.

5/9/2008 6:24:34 PM

sometimes you just need something to execute at least once ok

5/9/2008 9:35:22 PM

yeah i actually relish the opportunity to use a do while

5/9/2008 9:49:43 PM

I remember one at my last job went through and changed a bunch of

for (int i = 0; i < ??????; i++)

to

for (int i = 0; i < ??????; ++i)

for no apparent reason

5/9/2008 10:11:08 PM

ya'lls a bunch of nerds

5/9/2008 10:28:40 PM

^^ Because pre-increment is more efficient than post-increment because it doesn't create a copy. Granted for built-in types like int in the example you showed the compiler will optimize it out, but for more complicated objects that define ++ (and also --) and for iterators pre-increment is definitely what you want to do if you simply want to increment a value.

5/9/2008 10:59:23 PM

i prefer

Quote :

" for(; { if(f.EOF()) break; ... } "

5/9/2008 11:39:17 PM

Jaeger out of nowhere with a quality post as usual

5/9/2008 11:58:29 PM

Definitely quality, but like he said, it shouldn't end up making a difference. It might not even make a difference for more complicated objects (guess that depends on the compiler) since the result of i++ isn't really consumed by anything.

[Edited on May 10, 2008 at 1:30 AM. Reason : makes me wonder why the convention is to postfix in for loops though]

5/10/2008 1:22:44 AM

Quote :

"if ( someboolean == true) { return true; } else if (someboolean == false) { return false; }"

lol.

5/10/2008 10:46:48 AM