From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 15 Jan 92 01:15:57 GMT
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!network.ucsd.edu!swrinde!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!so
l.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!master.cs.rose-hulman.edu!susan.cs.rose-hulman.edu!ei
genstr@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Todd R. Eigenschink)
Subject: Re: Ada statement
Message-ID: <1992Jan15.011557.29353@cs.rose-hulman.edu>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <1992Jan14.221658.7468@beta.lanl.gov>, jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Gil
es) writes:
|> In article <1992Jan14.204928.21571@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>, willett@cbnewsl.cb.a
tt.com (david.c.willett) writes:
|> |> [...]
|> |> 	You can use the NULL statement as one alternative of a conditonal
|> |> 	accept, or as an alternative in a conditonal.  In both cases, it
|> |> 	would be analogous to the FORTRAN  or C "continue".
|> 
|> The Fortran continue and the C continue do completely different things.
|> In Fortran, continue does nothing and is a convenient place to hang
|> a statement label.  In C, a continue statement causes the rest of the
|> innermost loop to be skipped and for the next pass of the loop to begin
|> (ie. the "cycle" statement in some languages).  The C feature which 
|> resembles a Fortran continue is ";" - the NULL statement - same as 
|> Ada.
|> 
|> 
|> J. Giles

Thanks for the responses.  All of them seemed to center around the same
basic things.  I do have one opinion different than that which was expressed,
about C's "null" statement.  True, a semicolon won't do anything if just
inserted into code.  However, it is my understanding (perhaps I'm
wrong, and I don't have my K&R handy to check this) that the semicolon is
a statement terminator...so C's null statement is _really_ null!  (And
therefore not necessary.)

What about something like:

	for (i = 0; i < 10; i++)
		;

As far as I know, the semicolon just terminates the statement, which doesn't
have any body (except for the i++).

Well, anyway, I'm glad I know.  I still don't see the point in demanding
a statement which does nothing, but I'll accept it.

Oh, yeah...and somebody (can't find the post) said something about writing
a lot more code in the real world.  Unless I'm mistaken, the average
programmer for a government project produces something like 10 lines of
code per day.  (Just shows the emphasis on design, I guess. :-> )

--
Todd Eigenschink
eigenstr@CS.Rose-Hulman.Edu