Related articles |
---|
[ANN] Squirrel yet another scripting language albertodemichelis@hotmail.com (2003-09-09) |
Re: [ANN] Squirrel yet another scripting language visionary25@hotmail.com (Vis Mike) (2003-09-14) |
Re: [ANN] Squirrel yet another scripting language me@here.there.com (Peter Ashford) (2003-09-22) |
Re: [ANN] Squirrel yet another scripting language emonk@slingshot.co.nz (Corey Murtagh) (2003-09-22) |
Re: [ANN] Squirrel yet another scripting language nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2003-09-23) |
Re: [ANN] Squirrel yet another scripting language joachim.durchholz@web.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2003-09-23) |
Re: [ANN] Squirrel yet another scripting language vbdis@aol.com (2003-09-27) |
Re: [ANN] Squirrel yet another scripting language visionary25@hotmail.com (Vis Mike) (2003-09-27) |
From: | vbdis@aol.com (VBDis) |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | 27 Sep 2003 13:54:12 -0400 |
Organization: | AOL Bertelsmann Online GmbH & Co. KG http://www.germany.aol.com |
References: | 03-09-067 |
Keywords: | design |
Posted-Date: | 27 Sep 2003 13:54:12 EDT |
Corey Murtagh <emonk@slingshot.co.nz> schreibt:
>The only even slightly tricky part is that the test expression defaults
>to true.
There exists another trick, that "continue" within a C for loop will
go to the increment expression, not to the loop test. This behaviour
cannot be emulated in while loops, without explicit goto's instead of
continue.
In my C decompiler I used this special encoding to definitely separate
for loops from other loop types :-)
DoDi
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.