Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| From: | "Robin Vowels" <robin51@dodo.com.au> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Sat, 14 Apr 2018 14:19:11 +1000 |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| References: | <49854345-f940-e82a-5c35-35078c4189d5@gkc.org.uk> 18-03-103 18-03-042 18-03-047 18-03-075 18-03-079 18-03-101 18-04-002 18-04-003 18-04-004 18-04-024 18-04-034 18-04-041 18-04-046 18-04-050 |
| Injection-Info: | gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="2803"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |
| Keywords: | syntax, algol68 |
| Posted-Date: | 14 Apr 2018 15:04:43 EDT |
From: "bartc" <bc@freeuk.com>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 4:40 AM
> But it is not adding extra syntax; if anything it is getting rid of it!
> If a for-loop starts like this:
>
> for i:=1 to n do ...
>
> Then by leaving out the bits not needed you end up with this:
>
> to n do ...
The control variable, i, must not be omitted.
It may be required for computations within the loop
(including subscript references).
Even if not explicitly referenced within the loop,
its value will be required for fault finding (with error control
and/or with debugger).
> A repeat-n-times loop (one that doesn't have to maintain an explicit
> loop counter accessible as a reference-counted variable from the source
> code).
It's still required, as described above.
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.