From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL,
	INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:29578 comp.lang.ada:3965
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: bug me now / bug me later
Message-ID: <23471:Jun1405:22:1090@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 14 Jun 90 05:22:10 GMT
References: <811@sagpd1.UUCP> <7498@fy.sei.cmu.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: IR
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <7498@fy.sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
> In article <811@sagpd1.UUCP> jharkins@sagpd1.UUCP (Jim Harkins) writes:
> >	a.	for(i = SIZE; i != 0; i -= STEP)
> >	b.	for(i = SIZE; i > 0; i -= STEP)
> First, the coding of the loop should have nothing to do with the values
> of SIZE and STEP.  The code you write should be determined by the
> postcondition you wish to establish.

Say what? Who cares what the value of i is after the loop? Most of the
time I want to see i uninitialized the moment the loop ends (though
there are enough exceptions to this rule that I don't want the language
to force it on me).

> Secondly, the question of errors.  If the loop variable reaches a state
> from which the postcondition is unreachable, there is an error in the
> code.

Again, who says there has to be a postcondition? The programmer is
thinking about the values i will take on trips through the loop, not
about the value it'll have afterwards.

---Dan